THE WORLD FROM WASHINGTON | Michael Hirsh

Fixing the First War

As U.S.-Pakistani tensions mount, Petraeus steps in.

By Michael Hirsh | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jun 18, 2008 | Updated: 6:27  p.m. ET Jun 18, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: jbz7879 @ 01/01/2009 5:23:42 PM

    mr.petraeus

    no one has ever ever defeated or won against afghans from alexander to the red army ,

    so i hope you see where you stand -on just the two feet god gave you
    and i think the historical lesson is

    they come to afghanistan
    they fight
    they die
    and they get buried
    if lucky they get flown back home in a body bag
    happy new year

  • Posted By: jbz7879 @ 01/01/2009 5:19:49 PM

    i am so glad pakistan is going all out against the hypocrisy of the american lies and demonstrating their disdain for the despicable american admin policies too .
    they have finally seen the light of the day .

    us deceived pakistan every time it needed them ,putting an arms embargo in 1965 war -not reolving 1971 politically and then telling bhutto if you make a nuke you will eat grass

    well pakistan has over a 100 nukes and they eat better then macs -the staple food the yanks eat
    lolz

  • Posted By: mryuk @ 10/13/2008 12:16:53 PM

    d

  • Posted By: Dollared @ 07/19/2008 1:22:59 PM

    Petraeus quiet talks with the Pakistanis are unusual because he's a military leader, not a diplomat!

    Note that once again this article is the product of disclosures of confidential information. With Hirsh, you don't have to ask if he's a tool of the militarists and neocons. He gets so much secret information, leaked strategically to him, that you know he's a willing and corrupt tool of those who would keep us in wars forever. Instead, you have to ask "who's using Hirsh this week, and why?"

    For this one, I think it's David Petraeus, the next Douglas MacArthur, hoping to get out of front of a likely President Obama and make sure Obama doesn't fire him in week 1.

    Of course, the next set of headlines from Hirsh will be talking points for McCain, fed by the neocons, hoping that there won't be a President Obama....

    • Posted By: mryuk @ 10/13/2008 12:39:18 PM

      I hate this kind of misplaced skepticism that brings out the wildest and most uninformed conspiracy theories of the left.

      Half the article is not about Petraeus. Did you even try to follow that material, or your conspiracy theory not have room to account for things like on the ground specifics of individual countries? That sounds pretty close to the dangerous neoconservative thinking you're so critical of. Just because something takes place in secret, and a reporter relies on confidential sources to cover it, doesn't mean you can reliably deduce that some terrible conniving against the American people is what's really happening.

      If you look at the last paragraph, what's neoconservative about what this article says Petraeus might do? What's neoconservative about the war in Afghanistan, and our inevitable need to deal with Pakistan in fighting it?

      (For more on how Petraeus differed from neoconservatives in Iraq, you should take a look at Fiasco by Thomas Ricks. For background on Afghanistan and Pakistan, see Ghost Wars by Steve Coll, Descent into Chaos by Ahmed Rashid. Dexter Filkins had a good article last month about recent developments in New York Times called Right at the Edge.)

  • Posted By: Trooper101st @ 06/27/2008 1:14:36 PM

    P-stan has no motivation at all to conduct ops in territory they don't even govern. They want the islamists to stay in the tribal belt and out of Pakistan. No car bombs in Peshawar, Quetta, Islamabad, you get the idea. An insurgency cannot survive w/out a safe haven. Its like a parasite, it needs a host to live. The T-ban/AQ have it better now than they ever could have dreamed. The P-stani Corps commanders is where the REAL power lies. Alot of them are T-ban sympathizers, some are T-ban themselves. The P-stani's use that sovereignty CRAP when it serves them. There are over 30+ camps running in Waziristan, thier leaders are there, this is NOT part of Pakistan. If you want to take the steam out of thier movement, bomb the camps, compounds that house thier HVT's, and air-assault into these areas to clean up/kill the vermin that survived the bombs. Tell those 2 faced P-stani's to stay out the way.

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 06/23/2008 11:58:27 PM

    We need to get out of Iraq and transfer responsibility and management of that country to the IRAQ's themselves. THEY SHOULD be backed by a multinational force led by Middle Eastern countries until they are able to fight extremist on their own.
    Our unilateral approach in the MIDDLE EAST has to come to an end. ECONOMICALLY, IRAQ IS KILLING the average tax payer and making a few private contractors and oil firms rich.

    We need Oil. WE NEED OIL. Therefore, getting rid of the Iranian regime is at the top of our agenda.
    The majority in Iran want change but not under and American led invasion. It has to be done from within. We lost the support of moderate Arabs and Muslims over the last six years. Hopefully, PRESIDENT OBAMA can empower this group and encourage them to meet with their counterparts.

    Inotherwords there should be an alliance between all moderates in the Middle East, JEWS, ARABs, MUSLIMS, ect... These forces must be self motivated by a common cause, Peace. IF this group can be strengthened they themselves will defeat or at least contain the force of extremism.
    WE must strengthen the forces behind peace and weaken those against peace on both sides.

    THE UNITED STATES CANNOT SOLVE THE CONFLICT IN THE MIDDLE EAST. WE CAN ONLY STRENGHTEN AND SUPPORT THE PEOPLE OF THE MIDDLE EAST TO SOLVE THEIR OWN PROBLEMS.

    IN THE SHORT RUN WE NEED MIDDLE EASTERN OIL. THIS COMPLICATES OUR ROLE OVER THERE.
    WE Should have had an ENERGY SUMMIT TEN YEARS AGO. WE NEED TO COME UP WITH A TWENTY YEAR PLAN to RID OURSELVES of OIL DEPENDENCY IN THE MIDDLE EAST. TWENTY YEARS WILL GO BY LIKE NOTHING. WE HAVE TO START NOW.

    THE most dangerous threats are the ones you do not see coming. LIKE CHINA, RUSSIA, EASTERN EUROPEAN organized crime. Monitoring these entities will be our great challenge.
    ARE WE READY FOR CYBER WAR. I DON't THINK SO.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/21/2008 2:27:16 PM

    It's a religious war and we are right in the middle of it. How foolish.

    • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/22/2008 4:56:02 AM

      That is way too simplistic.

      It is "partly" religious. But it is also ethnic, tribal, and even organizational.

      Proof?

      Even in the Shi'ite religion, Sadr's militias kill other Shi'ite militias. To say "rteligious" is naive and simplistic.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/21/2008 2:25:47 PM

    Some say that this war was waged to get oil. If we had spent the same budget on automobile and fuel technology that we have spent on this war, we probably wouldn't need the oil and thousands of innocent people wouldn't have been killed. If they wanted to blow each other up anyway, then at least they would have done it only for religious purposes and not because we started it without cause.

    • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/22/2008 4:53:17 AM

      "Without cause". Your perception.

      I think that it had many causes. One which I'd conceed was oil. Most others noble.

      I think that you assume the worst.

      Me? I admit some not good... but most are. I don't assume the government is lying (even 'Dem government) by default.

      People have lost the ability to lose their bias.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/21/2008 2:18:41 PM

    General Petraeus has been given the job of stirring chaos with a stick. What an assignment. When victory is defined as "fewer of ours killed than yesterday", we are not victorious. When victory is defined as "fewer civilians killed by suicide bombers than yesterday", we are not victorious. Our armies subdued Germany and Japan and total peace reigned in Europe and the Pacific where a world war was fought, and we had documents of Unconditional Surrender signed in both theaters of war in less time than we have been stirring chaos with a stick in Iraq. All statements of success are delusional. It was wrong to start with. It has been wrong every day of the war. It is wrong now. It is time to shut down and withdraw as soon as orderly and safe withdrawal can be accomplished. A great general with a bad assignment is just farting around with statistics, trying to get by.

    • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/22/2008 4:49:39 AM

      Post WWII Germany and Japan were easy in comparison. They surrendered and their troops stood down. Modern day conflicts we have no such luxuries (eg. ever think that we'll have Al Queda "surrender"?).

      As for Iraq... it's not just numbers killed. More "security" allows other progress to happen.

      As has been said before, Political reconcillation in Iraq is key... and it IS HAPPENING... in measureable ways.

      It'll take more patience to see... patience that I fear this general public in the US doesn't have with it's need for instant gratification. Would have todays society had the intestinal fortitude to have slogged it out through WWII? I doubt it...

  • Posted By: sb0614 @ 06/21/2008 2:08:51 PM

    Please forget partisan politics here. Pakistan does not fit any of previous scenarios from WW1 to Vietnam to Iraq. Pakistani military or its' politicians doesn't have a full grip on their own soil. They have little motivation as it is considered "not their war". Now, the world knows Pakistan is a magnet for terrorists training camps. madarasssas, and Islamic fundamentalism. Major terrorist acts around the world have roots in Pakistan; however, its' politicians and military are inept at dealing with this monster( the infrastructure was laid down soon after 1947 by ISI to capture Kashmir and terrorize India but, things got out of hand ). For years the Pakistani military supported these "freedom fighters" to covertly infiltrate Indian part of Kashmir. Training camps and recruitment through madarassas was part of the military budget and then came Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Billions of US aid and hardware support came in and this infrastructure got a tremendous boost. More training camps and even more madarassas led to Soviet pull out. All the while Indians were getting very nervous. 9/11 followed by suicide attack on India's Parliament. India mobilized its' troops along the Pakistani border. Now the US got nervous. India backed down.
    I have diverted from the topic to illustarte that this 'war' is different from any in the past. The Madarassa-Islamic fundametalist-Terrorist infrastructure is going to be very difficult to dismantle. I am not sure the Pakistan government or the military will even try to dismantle it. Any attempt to do so and the infrastructure will gear itself against them.

    Petraus or any General for that matter has an extremely difficult task ahead of them regardless of a Republican or a Democratic President.

    • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/22/2008 4:41:31 AM

      Excellent post.

      Which is my point exactly... that Pakistan (and getting Osama bin Laden who very likely is there) is an EXTREMLY touchy issue.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/20/2008 8:25:44 PM

    You are a good person AlbertanSeperatist and I respect your opinion.

  • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/20/2008 4:03:46 PM

    When you listen to Obama talk about what he'll do in Iraq, you never hear that he'll leave 20,000 troops there for an indefinite amount of time. What you hear him say is "I'll get us out of Iraq". To me, that implies that it'll be immediate and complete. I daresay that this is how the general public interprets it as well.

    In reality, the end result from Obama's decision may not differ in the least from McCain's. It's just about how the two will go about it.

    Obama will go ahead and do it regardless of what the commanders on the ground say the consequences will be.

    McCain will go ahead and do it if the commanders on the ground support it.

    At this rate... with things improving in Iraq (remember how bad it was at the end of 2006?)... McCain could very well end his first hypotetical term in office having pulled all the US troops out of Iraq except some 20,000.

    But that is all speculatory on the future and I will not try to pretend that I can see the future as you do. I will not pretend that I can predict the future which will be impacted by uncertain events that have not happened yet.

    But Obama and McCain having reached the same end result based off two hypothetical futures is a distinct possibility.

    The "impulsive" action that you have described would be to do the popular thing (re: pull the troops out of Iraq regardless of what the realities on the ground are there) with no thought on what the right (and unpopular) thing to do is. THAT would be impulsive as well.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/20/2008 3:07:25 PM

    I have really enjoyed our conversation, AlbertanSeperatist, and you have taught me a lot. I will gladly pay your bill for tuition upon receipt.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/20/2008 3:04:56 PM

    This is not prophecy. You can actually see it move. It is visible to the naked eye. No psychic need apply.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/20/2008 3:01:22 PM

    But let me correct a potential error. The change in 1952 was from the leftward trend of government, not incompetence. The Truman administration was not incompetent. It continued to extend the leftward policies of the Rooosevelt administration which had previously corrected the Hoover administration which had gone way too far right. Pendulous, I warrant, if you watch it move back and forth.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/20/2008 2:53:56 PM

    Well, with respect to change in the troop displacement, Obama is a prudent man. No one would expect the sudden and precipitous withdrawal that was quickly seized by the republican campaign as Obama's intention. He will be just like any other administrator who gathers the people around him who will carry out a change in direction. The impulsive action has already taken place. Starting a hasty war without cause. Cleaning it up is a big job, but Obama is ten times as competent as what we have now.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/20/2008 2:45:13 PM

    Now, AlbertanSeperatist, I don't mean to be too contrary here, but I clearly remember our entry into World War II, and that war was not unpopular with the American People. A good friend of mine couldn't wait and he went to your good country to join the Canadian Air Force in order to be able to get some licks in before the inevitable war actually was declared. Your air force was, of course, over in England already trying to slow down the German bombers who were bombing London and the ports along the Thames. I was too young to get in the service at the time, but I can clearly remember the unanimous patriotism that took the whole country. Toward the end, Truman's decision to drop the big ones on Japan was based on estimates that indicated that we would lose as many as 500,000 lives trying to take Japan itself. The fanaticism that had previously been exhibited by the Japanese troops, choosing to die rather than surrender was expected on the mainland as the invasion was being prepared.
    I was here and I know these things to be true. The wars that we are in now bear no relation whatsoever to those times and circumstances. We had real cause and little or no choice then. We are recently in wars of choice where the word "warmonger" looms its ugly head. Please let it not be true. We should never have started a preemptive war.

    • Posted By: Trooper101st @ 06/27/2008 1:31:54 PM

      olderwiser wat do you call 2 jets being rammed into buildings full of people? This war was thrust upon us, we did not go looking for it. Iraq is a different story. Its about greed, oil drilling rights, and supplying the war machine. Afghanistan is where the real war on terror is. We should have wrapped up this theatre a while ago. Radical Islam is today's Nazi's. Todays version may be more dangerous due to the proliferation of WMD's and other weaponry. You think the Japanese were fanatical? Have you caught the Arab version of kamikaze? Until we bomb the camps in Waziristan to dust, put boots on the ground for a week or so, they will act with impunity. We chopper in, achieve our objectives, we move fast, then we chopper back out. See ya again soon. Do not expect much from the P-stani's, they could care less about insurgents attacking US troops. We are ALL voting for Obama. He said he would send us across the border. I hope we do.

    • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/20/2008 4:20:22 PM

      Wrong.

      Isolationism was popular opinion in the US before Dec. 7th 1941. That day when the US public learned that they did not live in their own little isolated bubble in the world the theory of Isolationism died.

      From Sept 1st 1939 to Dec 6th 1941 the rest of the free world was BEGGING the US to get into the fight. But the US didn't because it didn't have enough support in the general public. Sure there were a few Americans who volunteered to fight in WWI before Dec 7th... so what? There were Canadians who volunteered to fight in Vietnam for the US military... even when that war became wildly unpopular.

      Now it was obvious that the US was going to war against Japan after Pearl Harbour... that was a given (though I do believe that there was one US Senator who voted against going to war... and there was isolationists and pacifists who didn't want the US to get involved... though you'd never find anybody who would admit to that today). but entering the war with Germany was no absolute. It was only when Hitler declared war on the US first that the US public really had no choice in the matter. BTW... one of the biggest mistakes (among many) that Hitler made.

      And I don't second guess Truman's decision to drop the bomb on Japan. Bottom line is that it saved lives. American lives, and Japanese lives (both military people and civilians alike... some estimated 50,000 Japanese civilians were killed in the invasion of Okinawa). My main point was that it was a 'Dem (for all those who consider all 'Pubs to HAVE to be "war mongers") and that there was massive collateral dammage associated with dropping the bomb which nobody seemed to take issue with (some 80,000 people were killed in Tokyo from one incendiary bombing raid by the US... directly comparable in terms of human lives lost with Hiroshima or Nagasaki).

      And the US did have a choice with Germany. They didn't have to send troops over to fight. What was Germany going to do to the US? Send over their navy that the Royal Navy had already largely sunk? Hitler declaring war on the US forced the US to fight Germany... but only because in the US publics mind that they had no choice.

      Lastly, there are scenerios for when a pre emptive strike is prudent. In my opinion, Iraq 2003 was one of them. In the post 9/11 world, the US could not afford to allow threat to gather. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the very epitome of a "gathering threat".

    • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/20/2008 3:54:31 PM

      "Change" is sold every election. Obviously with an exiting approval rating of like 25-30% (or whatever it ends up being) the general public will likely be even more receptive to the words "change" than normal. Obama, and McCain both correctly identify this and use the word even more.

      But "change" isn't good change by default. The prmise of "change" this election cycle is really nothing more than the "same old, same old". As I pointed out... Obama is selling the idea that he will get the US out of Iraq almost completely but any realist knows different (and Obama has verified this with his very quiet "20,000 will remain in Iraq" statements). Change? No, politicospeak... the exact thing that Obama has promised us that he is above.

      I actually agree with you on the swinging of the pendulum... but it seems to me in recent history that whent he pendulum has swung left... that it hasn't stayed there for very long... it has come screaming back to the right for a much longer duration.

      I don't dispute the fact that the pendulum does in fact swing. This can be seen historically. I dispute "when" it will swing. Nobody knows. Not me, not you, not the Queen of England. Period. The election in 2004 was the 'Dems to lose and guess what? They lost it. This time around, Obama is at the moment slightly out ahead. But this is a snapshot in time.... not what the 2008 elections will end up by prophecy or by default. As I stated... there is still plenty of time for a videotape of Obama to come out enjoying a Rev. Wright sermon. The future is not etched in stone in regards to "when".

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/20/2008 2:32:42 PM

    I would not want to marginalize a person's words. That is done by the person who uses them, if it gets done at all. The word "change" is not a cliche in this campaign. Both candidates use if for a very good reason. It would be insane not to change the incompetence in government of the past eight years. It was used in the Eisenhower campaign. Same thing. Past government went too far left and everybody knew it. Proper usage then. Proper usage now. Not a cliche.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/19/2008 9:37:59 PM

    I remember the Eisenhower campaign using "change" big time. The Democrats had been in since Roosevelt won in 1932. "It's time for a change" was used over and over on the radio political ads, and in the newspapers. We didn't get TV where I lived then until 1953. The word "cliche" is mostly used to belittle a word onerous to the one labeling it. Good high school debate training, so to speak. But, actually, it really was time for a change when Ike's campaign used it. The left had taken over from Hoover in '32, and had moved the country quite a bit left in those twenty years, and gravity won in helping the pendulum back toward the right with Ike. The stuff that we are seeing now is more seasonal than anything. It really is time for a change. I think that it is sad for Mc Cain that the Bush campaign smeared him out of his 2002 chances. Mighty low, but in the succeeding years it became understandable that with Rove behind things, dirt was the order of the day. Every day, and Mc Cain, the better candidate than Bush, didn't have a chance.
    Now, after he is really too old to make it, Mc Cain also sees that "change" is not a cliche. Sad, again, that he has to say that about the policies of his own party. Think about it. That's how bad it's been.
    Time for a change. She's moving left and it doesn't matter how loud that you scream, cry, poot or slander, the left turn will be completed in this election. Back and forth, back and forth, the pendulum will not be denied.

    • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/20/2008 12:30:47 PM

      Those war mongering 'Dems!

      Getting involved in a war that was unpopular with the American public (I'm talking about Nazi Germany here, not Imperial Japan) and then dropping two atomic bombs (no 'Pub... not even that evil Bush has ever done that) causing massive collateral damage and killing masses of women and children! How dare they!

      (rolls eyes)

      Yes, the politican pendulum does seem to swing back and forth over time. But have you noticed something? It's relative short stay on the left of the spectrum? Even Hilary Clinton made comment on this in her defeat speech... how few 'Dem Presidents there has been over the past 50 or so years. Now why would that be?

      And you can try to marginalize my use of the word "cliche", but it is exactly that. If you can't see that the word gets used EVERY election then you'll never "get it". But go ahead and buy stock in "change" every election. I'd like to sell you some beachfront property in Death Valley...

      So Obama represents "change" does he? Have you noticed that Obama very quietly and not in front of TV cameras conceeds that he will be keeping 20,000 or so troops in Iraq (and the region) if elected? Is this the "change" that you are talking about? Go ahead and buy those stocks though... buy high and sell low... that's a sure recipe for success. LOL!

      As McCain said... "Is that change that we can believe in?"

      And there you go again making a definitive statement on what the future holds... that the pendulum WILL swing to the left! I seem to remember in 2004 people making the exact same definitive statements. End result? Another Bush term for 2004-2008.

      By all accounts the McCain-Obama race looks to be pretty close thus far.

      And there is still plenty of time for video showing Obama attending one of Rev. Wright's fiery sermons to surface with Obama clapping and cheering at every "God damned America" declaration.

      As I said... I will put more stock in the local psychic's prediction on the future than yours...

  • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 6:16:00 PM

    I love how the angry left (is there such a thing as a "moderate" left anymore?) does anythign from outright smearing Petraeus (MoveOn.org) to discrediting him, to only saying that he's a good man put in an impossible situation.

    Like somehow his expertise in the field is null and void or all the way to he is simply a mouthpiece of the Bush Admin.

    Heaven forbid we actually consider that he happens to believe in what he says and be more qualified to make statements than some of these armchair QBs of the general public.

    I believe that the left has been hijacked by the more extremist elements. And that really is a shame because I think that a healthy "left" is essential for good and meaningful debate and ideas in this country.

    I think that it was Politico a while back who ranked the various Senators on their voting records. Obama had the most "liberal" voting record. Hilary was something like the 10th most "liberal". McCain couldn't be measured completely, but on social issues was like 56th most "conservative".

    With Obama promising to work across the aisle and to "unite" Americans, I am highly sleptical that somebody who is the most liberal Senator in America somehow has the ability to do this in comparison to someone like McCain who has historically shown the ability to work across the aisle... sometime to even the scorn of his own party.

  • Posted By: HDavidson @ 06/19/2008 5:18:37 PM

    Never Fear, BUSHtraeus is here...I feel so safe now, so tell General, what has Bush/Cheney told you to tell us now?

    • Posted By: C. MacLean @ 06/19/2008 11:08:42 PM

      As much as I hate Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and this war, I doubt very much that General Petraeus is a Bush puppet. He's done a great job with the surge from a military point of view, even though the surge was flawed policy - that isn't his fault.

      It is a soldier's job to accomplish his strategic mission, and Petraeus has done that, and probably by standing up to Rumsfeld who had no business directing a kindergarten play, let alone our miltary.

      No, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld are the real villians here, not Petraeus - he has performed well in an almost impossible situation.

      Too bad we have wasted our brightest and most courageous on flawed policy. Too bad we didn't send him to Afghanistan in 2002.

      • Posted By: HDavidson @ 06/20/2008 2:30:04 AM

        Well the thing is if he wa'nt he, like 5 other gemerals, would be forced to retire...that is the preception.

  • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 06/19/2008 1:31:37 PM

    Sen. John McCain told the American people Wednesday night, Jan.30, 2008 at the conclusion of the final Republican Presidential Debate broadcast live on CNN from the Ronald Reagan Library, that if elected president,



    "I will bring our troops home with honor."



    This declaration was no doubt said with (forked) tongue in cheek by McCain. In reality this closing statement of McCain is hard to believe when in 1993 as a ranking member of the Senate Select Investigating Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, McCain declared, the final chapter in the POW/MIA Investigation had been written and then issued the Final Report of his Committee in which he concluded:



    "We found no compelling evidence to prove that Americans are alive in captivity today (1993). We have not hidden anything from the public. There is some evidence???though no proof to suggest only the possibility that a few Americans may have been kept behind after the end of America???s military involvement in Vietnam. The Committee found absolutely no credible evidence that the U.S. Government conspired to prevent the American people from knowing that Americans remained captive in Southeast Asia. (Report p. 468)

    Link to article: http://powermusicinc.com/

  • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 06/19/2008 1:26:47 PM

    The War Secrets Sen. John McCain Hides
    Former POW Fights Public Access to POW/MIA Files
    April 25, 2000
    By Sydney Schanberg

    PART 1 OF 2

    NEW YORK (APBnews.com) -- The voters who were drawn to John S. McCain in his run for the Republican presidential nomination this year often cited, as the core of his appeal, his openness and blunt candor and willingness to admit past lapses and release documents that other senators often hold back. These qualities also seemed to endear McCain to the campaign press corps, many of whom wrote about how refreshing it was to travel on the McCain campaign bus, "The Straight Talk Express," and observe a maverick speaking his mind rather than a traditional candidate given to obfuscation and spin.

    But there was one subject that was off-limits, a subject the Arizona senator almost never brings up and has never been open about -- his long-time opposition to releasing documents and information about American prisoners of war in Vietnam and the missing in action who have still not been accounted for. Since McCain himself, a downed Navy pilot, was a prisoner in Hanoi for 5 1/2 years, his staunch resistance to laying open the POW/MIA records has baffled colleagues and others who have followed his career. Critics say his anti-disclosure campaign, in close cooperation with the Pentagon and the intelligence community, has been successful. Literally thousands of documents that would otherwise have been declassified long ago have been legislated into secrecy.


    Link to complete article: http://www.aiipowmia.com/sea/schanberg_mccain.html

  • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 06/19/2008 1:20:31 PM

    McCain v. McCain: a master list of his flip-flops
    by: Steve Perry
    Thu May 08, 2008 at 9:13:29 AM

    Steve Benen at Carpetbagger Report has made a fresh batch of updates to his running list of John McCain's "evolving" positions on a long litany of issues.

    Excerpt:

    * McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a "'read my lips' candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?" referring to George H.W. Bush's 1988 pledge. "No new taxes," McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, "I'm not making a 'read my lips' statement, in that I will not raise taxes."

    * McCain is both for and against a "rogue state rollback" as a focus of his foreign policy vision.

    * McCain considered and did not consider joining John Kerry's Democratic ticket in 2004.

    * In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won't commit to supporting a regulation bill he's co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris' former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.

    link to article:
    http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=250E51506446F50825E6214393E4CCE0?diaryId=3922

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/19/2008 12:28:14 PM

    Mc Cain't, either.

    • Posted By: FATJOEY @ 06/19/2008 12:42:22 PM

      you wouldn't be a bleeding heart liberal would ya?!?

      • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/19/2008 4:05:21 PM

        If you've ever read posts by olderwiser, you know he has both liberal and conservative views. His views are very grounded and spot-on. Not everyone who thinks the Bush administration is a grave mistake is a bleeding heart liberal. If that were true, then 75% of the country must be liberals right now. People are just sick of the Republican regime and want a change. McCain may not be as bad as Bush, true, but he's closely associated with Bush in everyone's minds, and that's not good.

        • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 8:55:28 PM

          Not true.

          The extreme right hates McCain... they are simply out of any better options.

          McCain is only associated to Bush in the minds of people who want him to be. McCain has gone against Bush and his own party to his own disadvantage.

          How many times has Obama gone against the will of the Democratic party? Riddle me that...

          Obama and the 'Dems are desperate to paint McCain as Bush v3.0. McCain is desperate to distance himself from Bush. The person who convinces the American public the best will probably win the election I think.

          Don't assume that Republicans are all big fans of Bush... because not all of us are.

          Some of us are even able to seperate unbiasedly some good from some bad. Most others only see the world in black and white.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/19/2008 12:27:38 PM

    "Change" is not a cliche. It is an absolute necessity. "Surge" is a cliche. Here, general, take this cliche and see what you can do with it. What a travesty.

    • Posted By: onepoker @ 06/19/2008 6:41:50 PM

      surge is a simplification of a plan that is being implemented. Change is a wide open dream that has no grounding in reality. Tell me what the Change is? He has no idea he is running on the premis that Bush is so terrible that he can just scream change and the lemmings will fall in place.

      MCCain is a change from Bush also but atleast he has a plan. Obama just claims to want to work with everyone without ever stating what it is he will do.

    • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 6:35:04 PM

      You may think that "change" is an absolute nessessity. And this may shock you, but I tend to agree. I actually think that McCain would represent a better President that Bush ever was.

      But every election cycle, "change" IS A CLICHE. If you have not come to this realization then you're susceptible to being duped by every new slick used car dealer every election.

      Surge a cliche?!? LOL! Are you kidding?!? The vast majority of the US public is now against the war in Iraq and has been for quite some time now. How exactly is it in your mind that "surge" is a cliche?!? It's not popular at the moment, nor has it ever been!

      LOLOLOLOLOL!

      (rolls eyes)

  • Posted By: FATJOEY @ 06/19/2008 12:23:38 PM

    the 11 dead pakistani "soldiers" who died were fighting alongside the taliban, wtf do they think they're kidding?

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/19/2008 11:54:06 AM

    Petraeus is one of our shining stars out of West Point. Highly intelligent, effective, able. What a shame to be assigned the crap that has come to him from this historically notorious administration. Seldom has history been so predictable so soon. I was here when Truman was president, and I can assure you, Bush is no Harry S. Truman. It's the only thing left that he can claim, tainted by failure after failure, lie after lie, war crime after war crime, and he thinks that a few decades can shield him in this false claim to posterity that is not his to claim. The honor goes to our historians to come, not the desperate screwup who claims it now.

    • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 6:06:47 PM

      The only reason why I mentioned Truman wasn't to try to draw some direct comparison to Bush and Truman... but to highlight a point that Truman was very unpopular but who history has judged fairly well. That is IT. There are no other comparisons that can be made. Radically different men in radically different times.

      If you want to try to make some sort of direct comparison or non comparison... hey... knock yourself out. I wouldn't.

      As for history being "predictable"... I'll trust the psychic down the street to predict the future rather than anybody here who tries to predict the future definitively. Cripes... the local psychic has more qualifications to predict the future than anybody here.

      History will judge the Bush Admin... maybe not even for another 20 years or so. Not anybody in the "here and now". Ohh how that must eat at some people... LOL!

    • Posted By: FATJOEY @ 06/19/2008 12:43:46 PM

      every president lies?? and didn't truman drop nukes???? twice???want to compare japan and iraq?

      • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/19/2008 4:07:03 PM

        Also, almost every historian and military tactician, even Japanese ones, have agreed that the nukes were a necessary evil. Invading Japan would have cost millions of lives. Japan was actively fighting and bombing our military bases--we were fully engaged in WWII. COMPLETELY different from Iraq. Night and day.

        • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 6:30:21 PM

          9/11 *should* have taught us a few lessons. First and foremost in my mind is that gathering dangers should not be allowed to develop uncontested.

          In my mind, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the very definition of a "gathering danger". Years of Clinton's "containment" policies hadn't taken care of the root of the problem.

          We found no WMDs in Iraq (though absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence). We did find WMD programs that were in "suspension" which is very different that the destruction of these programs that the UN called for (uranium centrifuges... the same kind used in Iran today... hidden in Obeidi's backyard on the ecpress orders of the Hussein regime do not a "destroyed" WMD program make). In the much ballyhooed WMD Report in 2004, one of the major conclusions made was that Saddam Hussein had every intention of restarting his WMD programs once UN Sanctions were dropped and that support for UN Sanctions was faling apart.

          Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the very epitome of a "gathering" threat.

          Biggest lesson of 9/11 was lost on many apparently. Forget about that though... what is Paris Hilton wearing tonight?

      • Posted By: HDavidson @ 06/19/2008 3:32:24 PM

        Hey FatBoy, You can't compare Japan to Iraq as Japan ACTUALLY ATTACKED US....DOH!

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/19/2008 11:45:50 AM

    Hey, albertanseperatist, mark gershenson and albertanseparatist, you don't know how grateful I am that you came to the rescue and explained things about how well the war goes in Iraq and why, and about why we pressure Mexico to stop drugs but at the same time protect the Afghan opium crop. It was a pleasant surprise to read these this morn and ease my aged mind about such things. Fitful night's sleep.
    Noticing what you've bought in our government's policies in those countries reminded me that I have this bridge up there in Minneapolis that I don't need any more. It's a fixer upper, so I'm selling her cheap. Couple of million. You can fix her up and make a fortune in tolls. Best bargain I've had since I sold one in Brooklyn years ago to some smart enterprisers. If you are interested, as I am sure that you will be, such a bargain, just leave me a reply here and I will try to find a way that we can get in touch to iron out the details. Thanks again.

    • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 6:23:03 PM

      Maybe you need to take a class in reading comprehension. Nowhere did I paint a rosy picture of how Iraq is today. It is far from perfect and a lot of work still needs to be done. But only a blindman doesn't realize or admit that Iraq has taken a measureable turn for the better in comparison to late 2006 when it appeared to be on the fast track to Civil War (in fact, some of you "experts" on the internet definitively declared "Civil War" to already be reality in Iraq).

      Iraq is far from resolved... but it is getting comparatively better. It is measureable in many different ways. As Hilary said... "It takes a willing suspension of belief" to think otherwise.

      I had not mentioned Afghan opium nor the Mexican border... so if you insist on engaging on those points it'll have to be with a figment of your own little imagination.

      And I haven't brought anything to "our government's policies". I am Canadian. I cannot vote (yet). Nice assumption though. Your assumptions are indicative of the rest of your arguement. A real tribute to them.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/19/2008 11:29:15 AM

    Mc Cain't.

  • Posted By: Bass Pro @ 06/19/2008 9:38:37 AM

    Fixing is the operative word here. Move on dot org has been vindicated.

  • Posted By: bigdman @ 06/19/2008 9:10:05 AM

    Hypocrisy? Telling the turth is Hypocrisy? The turth is the turth. Period.

    Call me on it, go ahead I am not afriad of you right wing nut jobs!! The future belongs to people of color, your days are numbered, (Yea to China, India and others!!). You idiots confuse military power with economic power. Read real history!! See what happens to an Empire that spends all its Resouces on war, while pushing voodoo economic policies that only further enrich the rich.

    Take your head out of you know what and read the book "Bad Money" by Kevin Phillips.

    • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 6:48:36 PM

      Digest this:

      The US spent vast boatloads of money fighting WWII. It spent money that it quite simply didn't have.

      Furthermore, it spent more boatloads of money rebuilding Europe and Japan after WWII. The Marshal Plan.

      So I do not think that you can make the blanket statement above and make it stick to every possible situation/scenerio.

      We don't know what the end result of Iraq will be. Period. People like to think that they "know" but nobody does.

      Here is one possible scenerio though... a secular democracy in the heart of the Middle East that is an example to all Muslims throughout the world what their countries could be. A place where radical extremism is confronted. A place that sells it's oil on the world market and provides some level of relief from the supply side of the economic scales.

      Contrast that to an alternate reality... one where Saddam Hussein was still in power. One where Iraq continued to be on the State Departments top list of terrorist sponsoring states (as it was in the Clinton years... long before Bush came to power). One which had simply "waited out" the UN's resolve and who now not only had deep ties to terrorism but was reconstituting it's WMD programs.

      Which future holds more promise? The possible futures of Iraq today or one where Saddam Hussein had thumbed his nose to the entire world?

      Side note:

      It is widely speculated that Iran dropped it's ACTIVE quest for the nuclear bomb in 2003. Libya shocked the world and disclosed it's own nuclear aspirations in 2004 (one which the IAEA had no idea even existed). There is good reason to speculate that the US's invasion of Iraq in 2003 scared both of these countries straight.

      Actions have spin off reactions... both posative AND negative.

      The inability of people to see both sides of the equation is really a spectacle to behold.

      Ohhh... and the Bush Admin brought Pakistan away from being a rogue nation who had A.Q. Khan exporting nuclear technology throughout the world. There is yet one more "good" that the Bush Admin did that the Clinton Admin never made any progress on.

  • Posted By: bigdman @ 06/19/2008 8:29:19 AM

    It amazes me, (will redneck racist supremacy ever end?). That's all the Iraq invasion was about, (well oil too). Now take a bite of that you right wing nut jobs!! I can see you now, getting red in the face, getting mad, going to the rifle range and fantazing about shooting someone of color in the back, (cause that's what you do, all the while claiming "Freedom's on the march).

    All of us Americans will pay the price for your ignorance and arrogance!!

    • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 06/19/2008 2:39:08 PM

      Please stop this, we are trying to evolve past this kind of thinking.

    • Posted By: OldGamer007 @ 06/19/2008 8:53:12 AM

      "Redneck racist supremacy"? Why do I get the feeling this post came from a republican who is trying their hand at counter intelligence, and trying to make others think Obama supporters racist?

      As a white, republican, Obama supporter, I would suggest you choose your words a little more wisely, or there will be someone out here to call you on your bigoted hypocrisy.

      • Posted By: onepoker @ 06/19/2008 9:55:45 AM

        I love the way everytime an idiot from the left speaks up you guys call them a Spy or a republican in disguise.

        • Posted By: HDavidson @ 06/19/2008 3:34:42 PM

          So tell us what exactly is Joe Lieberman? Ror D?

          • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 6:56:27 PM

            Lieberman is one that got shunned by his own party for not being radical left enough. Nice.

            I don't agree with everything that Lieberman says, but I do respect his willingness not to simply sway to the political winds and to stick to what he believes in... even if it effectively gets him excommunicated from his own party.

            There is a vast difference between doing the "right" thing vs. doing the "popular" thing. I admire McCain greatly for not bowing to political pressures and doing the "popular" thing (re: pulling out of Iraq). I see very few 'Dems championing "right" and unpopular causes.

          • Posted By: LIKEITIS @ 06/19/2008 4:35:09 PM

            HE IS AN "I"

            • Posted By: HDavidson @ 06/19/2008 5:17:28 PM

              NO DOUCHE HE IS AN A$$HOLE! And his IS McCain's shadow, so he is an R! in I's clothing lol

      • Posted By: bigdman @ 06/19/2008 9:03:12 AM

        Oh please! My feeling are hurt. The turth be the turth. I forgot to add, you like killing women and childern and calling it "Collateral damage".

        • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/20/2008 12:11:49 PM

          Collateral damage has happened in every war since the beginning of time.

          There is less collateral damage than ever before (specialized munitions that destroy one house instead of carpet bombing an entire block).

          It ain't pretty, or make for good PR but geez Louise man... get over it already!

          Nobody "likes" killing women and children. But in your little black and white world, you sure like to pretend that us evil 'Pubs do. Nice.

        • Posted By: ozarkajuice @ 06/19/2008 11:52:38 AM

          Btw wh at is the TURTH?

  • Posted By: simplesimon33 @ 06/18/2008 11:48:20 PM

    It is interesting that a sober assessment by departing General McNeil just a few days ago about Pakistan???s non-cooperation in suppressing Taliban operations in Pakistan has fallen on deaf ears. And General Petraeus who blames Iran endlessly for encouraging terror attacks against US forces in Iraq, tries to be apologetic about Pakistan???s support to Taliban. To top it, Newsweek tries to demonstrate divisions between Pakistani military and civilian government while there aren???t any.

    As reported by Washington Post on 4/24/08, while announcing near completion of a peace deal with Pakistani government, Taliban spokesman Maulvi Omar vowed to continue fighting U.S.-led NATO forces in Afghanistan and said that "The presence of the U.S and NATO forces in Afghanistan is the mother of all ill and there will be no peace until their presence in the region has ended." Again as reported by Washington Post today 6/12/08, same Maulvi Omar, the Taliban spokesman said that Taliban fighters fought "side by side" with Pakistani soldiers against the US/Afghan forces during the recent operation when 11 Pakistani soldiers died. Pakistani government understandably ignores Maulvi Omar???s statements but how can General Petraeus ignore them?
    simple simon

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/18/2008 10:58:32 PM

    Thanks, Lawrence. Now I can sleep tonight.

  • Posted By: R Lawrence @ 06/18/2008 10:55:03 PM

    Some day in the future we may all read the news that Bush, Chaney, and Company were tried for war crimes and are rotting in jail somewhere, but for now all we can hope is that these crooks and incompetent idiots will not finish distroying this planet between now and the end of their term in office. I think that the world is just hold its breath until then. The Bush Administration will go down in histroy as the Presidency that failed at everything except make their crooked friends richer at the expense of the American tax payer. They have been a total failure in Afganistan, Iraq, and all domestic and foreign policy effort. I hope that we elect Obama rather than McSame because if not, we will just see a continuation of Bush... and Chaney.

    • Posted By: LIKEITIS @ 06/19/2008 4:21:33 PM

      Some day in the future we may all read the news that Bush, Chaney, and Company were tried for war crimes and are rotting in jail somewhere


      UNFORTUNATELY THAT WON'T HAPPEN, IT SEEMS THAT PRESIDENTS AND THEIR FREINDS GET A PASS! THE NEXT PRESIDENT WOULD PROBABLY PARDON ANY AND ALL DISGRESSIONS AND THEN THEY WOULD BE ABOUT THEIR BUSINESS OF SPENDING THEIR ILL GOTTEN GAIN!

    • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 12:23:31 AM

      Destroying the planet. Now that is a knee jerk, "the sky is falling" reaction.

      I hate definitive predictions that people make on the future but here I find myself making one:

      The day after the Bush Admin is out of power, you and I and everybody else will wake up and life will go on as usual. Bush and Co. won't be "distroying" the world.

      As for his Admin going down in history as a "failure"... oddly enough Truman's Admin ended with him being wildly unpopular. He is now regarded as having been a pretty decent President. People seem to be fixated on declaring the Bush Admin as going down as being the biggest failure in history. I'll let history make that determination... not people like you.

      • Posted By: marksgershenson @ 06/19/2008 1:38:50 AM

        Excellent point about Truman...There was an excellent piece on Truman broadcast on PBS about a month ago. I hope that they rebroadcast that because there are lessons to be learned from him and his administration...

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/18/2008 10:54:39 PM

    It's so strange that we put pressure on the President of Mexico to do more to keep drugs from coming into our country from Mexico, but we do not disturb the opium crop in Afghanistan. Do we think that all of the heroin from there will go to those countries who did not join our coalition? Is it Bush's revenge against those who didn't cooperate with his madness? We have soldiers who are under orders not to trample on the opium crop in Afghanistan so as to mollify the growers. Somebody, help on this blog. Answer these questions. Set me straight. What am I missing?

    • Posted By: marksgershenson @ 06/19/2008 1:27:27 AM

      You are missing the catch 22 situation of being in that part of the world vs Mexico which is south of us. Remember, we are not doing a terrific job in Mexico either...All of this Opium ban is wishful thinking.

      You are not going to being able to stop the Opium trade in either Mexico or Afghanistan. What other types of crops can make as much money as Opium, and what type of legal crops can be grown in Afghanistan or Mexico that would be as profitable?

      Our troops are spread so thin, how are they going to enforce a ban on Opium? Your question is a good one...in summary we are SOL

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/18/2008 10:49:30 PM

    If I ever saw a whole nation caught up in a Catch 22, it's us. We can't end the war because there is nobody to sign for a surrender. The longer we stay, the less we can stop because people died and it would be disrespectful of those who died to leave. And of course, we can't leave because no one can admit defeat there where the enemy is. Then, if we tried to withdraw before the war ends, it would be unsafe. Lots of catches. Not only Catch 22, but 23, 24, 25, 26, et seq.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/18/2008 10:44:22 PM

    Now, in Afghanistan, the street value of the opium poppy crop when it hits the United States is enough to pay for the Afghan war. Why aren't we confiscating the opium crop and selling it in the United States to pay for the war? Instead, we are letting the Afghans sell it so that they will not get mad and throw us out of the country, and then all of our dollars here are going to Afghanistan to the opium growers instead of paying for our troops who could use it. What ever happened to the search for Osama Ben Laden? Bush said that he would hunt him down and smoke him out and string him up. All we got was the smoke from his promise. How in the world can Mc Cain expect to be elected coming in behind such incompetence? He just can't disentangle from such as that. Obama sure got the right word for his campaign. Change. It's a cinch.

    • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 12:16:35 AM

      "Change" is not a cinch. But it is a cliche. "Change" is the centerpiece for sale every election. Are you buying?

      And in case you are not "in the know"... finding OBL isn't like finding your car keys in the morning. This isn't the movie "Enemy of the State"... reality is not such that we can find anybody in the world that we want anytime at the drop of a hat. Everybody seems to have a good idea the general idea of where he is... but it's simply not that easy. You can't put too much pressure on Pakistan without risking a brutal and deadly consequences... a radical extremist Islamic NUCLEAR armed (no uncertainty here... nuclear blasts are definitive proof) state. Finding OBL isn't as easy as finding Saddam Hussein, Noriega, or Hitler. For OBL... it WILL require PATIENCE. This is something that a generation raised on instant gratification and American Idol doesn't have and doesn't understand.

      OBL's day will come. It just won't be the "right now" that people seem to think should be an absolute in life.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/18/2008 10:36:41 PM

    Where is the oil that Cheney and Wolfowitz said would pay for the three month war that they started? As it turned out, there wasn't even enough oil to pay for the flowers that they said that the grateful Iraqis would throw at our soldiers as they left for home after the three month war. How on God's earth do we let such liars continue to stay out of jail?

    • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 12:30:23 AM

      I do think that Iraq needs to start paying for their own reconstruction.

      But in case you didn't know, the situation is looking like it is stabilizing in Iraq. Security (the starting point for getting anything done) is getting better. Still not adequate... but improving.

      Iraq is now pumping oil at pre 2003 levels. And with no more UN Sanctions (supported by most countries and the centerpiece of Clinton's "containment" of Saddam Hussein... not an issue now) Iraq is free to sell as much oil (re: at these prices, more is better) as they see fit. After more than ten years of decay and neglect, their oil infrastructure is getting rebuilt. Their oil exports will likely continue to rise... which can only help the worlds supply pool of total oil and provide some sort of relief to us at the pump.

      2nd largest conventional oil reserves in the world coming back online... has to be viewed as a good thing.

      • Posted By: Galasso @ 06/19/2008 1:31:38 AM

        Agree. The Iraqi Ambassador to the US said that they indeed have the money and the motivation to begin rebuilding the decayed infrastructure that Saddam left as a legacy. He said that the difficulty lies in the present security situation that makes potential contractors in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East hesitant to bid and commit to these projects - right now. The interim measure he said was to transfer some of this money to the US and have the US initiate the first phases of reconstruction. This is a sensitive period for investors but the price of real estate in downtown Baghdad is markedly increasing and the security situation is improving - all good signs but something you rarely see on the news.

        • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 7:05:19 PM

          In the news today was some of the larger oil companies in the world negotiating with the Iraqi government to rebuild the infrastructure. It is progress and it is in the making.

          What I do know is that "security" is essential before any progress can be made in other areas... rebuilding the oil industry, water, power, political reconciliation, etc. Without security, the country cannot move forward.

          I was reading George Tenet's "Eye of the Storm". He had a chapter written on the peace process between Palestinians and Israel in the 90's. He said that everytime progress looked to be being made, an attack by one side or the other would derail the whole process and it'd be back to square one.

          This seems to be the case in Iraq. Security isn't "good" but has been getting measurably better. When/if security gets to the point that it's ok, real leaps of progress will/can be made in Iraq. And the fact that oil companies are getting to the point where they are starting to feel safe about the idea of doing business in Iraq is testament to the fact that things are improving there from a security standpoint.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/18/2008 10:32:03 PM

    We are the Surgents and they are the Insurgents. We surge and then they insurge. Then we surge back. Then a suicide bomber comes in and breaks the monotony once in a while. The Iraqi congress goes on summer vacation while we surge again because it's too hot for the congress in the air conditioned Iraqi house of representatives. But it's not too hot for our surging troops to patrol in the 112 degree heat in full uniform with bullet proof vests paid for out of mother's cookie jar back home because Rumsfield went to war with the equipment he didn't have.
    Meantime, the person who can sign the unconditional surrender is hiding somewhere and we can't seem to find him. How does this end?

  • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/18/2008 10:24:27 PM

    So Obama and Petraeus agree on one thing. Whoop dee doo! Let's crown him the "bestest man ever" as the media has already done. Obama talks about bridging across to work with 'Pubs. McCain has DONE IT in his career (re: worked with 'Dems cross aisle). Obama talks about not engaging in "politics as usual"... then says that McCain *wants* to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years.

    Who are we going to trust? The man who called for the "surge" in Iraq years before it actually occured and who declared the '94 Agreement with North Korea a failure (intel shows that North Korea worked to learn how to enrich uranium as early as the mid 90's... with verifiable proof uncovered from the Pakistani A.Q. Khan network) or the naive upstart who says that he will send troops into Pakistan after Al Queda WITHOUT Pakistani permission (a realist knows that Pakistan is on the knifes edge of being a nuclear armed extremist Islamic state... talk about a STUPID thing to say publicly).

    Who has the PROVEN track record here... McCain or Obama?

    Finally... Obama voted against going to war with Iraq in 2003. At the time BELIEVING conventional wisdom that Iraq had WMDs or their programs (i.e. the consensus of every intel agency in the world outside of Baghdad... not one simple lie that the "simpleton" Bush fooled the entire world with).

    There is a reason why the 'Dems historically look weak on national security issues... because they are.

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/19/2008 4:13:38 PM

      A lot of people were against going to 'war' (occupation) despite having the false knowledge of WMDs. So they supposedly had weapons. So? Did they threaten to use them on us? Korea's had nukes that can reach California for years. Russia had them on target for the US in the 60s. Did we go to war with them? No, because at the time we had leaders that were intelligent enough to not take the knuckle-dragging bomb 'em all approach. THAT takes nerves of steel, great courage, and strong leadership. We were fine then, and we would have been fine. If we had been patient and waited, we would have seen that there were no WMDs, and there would have been one less breeding ground for terrorists.

      • Posted By: burbank @ 06/19/2008 11:34:02 PM

        To: summer4077
        FM: burbank
        Madam, if you want the real picture of why we went to war in Iraq, might I suggest Yosef Bodansky's book The Secret War In Iraq. He is the House Chair on terrorism and unconventional warfare. In his book he provides the evidence that paints quite a different picture than the one painted by the media. It certainly seems strange that in all the debate about the events that led up to the war, Mr. Bodansky's voice was one you did not hear. Even today, all we hear is what a huge mistake Iraq was and how this president made one blunder after another in a bloodthirsty drive toward war. Mr. Bodansky's tome, though quite lengthy, provides another side to the war equation that gets very little mention in the mainstream press. You and others would do well to read what Mr. Bodansky has to say. It would give you a clearer perspective on why we are in Iraq and why we had to go there in the first place. Good luck with you research.

      • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 7:30:05 PM

        Gathering threats.

        Al Queda didn't start killing Americans until the mid 90's but were they a "gathering" threat to Americans before that? Apparently so...

        And there is far more to the story of WMDs being in Iraq than the average American realizes. Sarin shells (which are now deteriorated past the point of being effective) are continuing to be found in Iraq.

        Are you familiar with how deadly Sarin is? Have you every heard of binary sarin warheads?

        (hint: binary sarin warheads have been discovered in Iraq and have an estimated useful shelf life of 10-15 years... it is conceivable that by the time the US invaded in 2003 that there were some still around which were still deadly... and how many sarin shells exactly does a "WMD" make?)

        I also suggest Googling "Madhi Obeidi". Uranium centrifuges can be used to make nuclear weapons... and they don't grow on trees.

        Wrong on North Korea having nukes that can reach California for "years". North Korea launched a missle that landed off Alaska back in 1998... but that is a far cry from California. It has also been "best guessed" that the missle in 1998 would not have been able to carry a nuclear warhead.

        There is a lot of speculation of what North Korea's ability to launch a missle with a nuclear warhead *may* be... but there is nothing definitive. Your statement is far from being proven.

        The Cold War between Russia and the US is quite different than what we are faced with today. Where MAD (mutally assured destruction) kept the US and Russia from obliterating civilization during the Cold War, Islamic extremists have no such limitations. Osama bin Laden said it best "We desire death as much as you desire life". Being martyred to an Islamic extremist is actually quite appealing. You arwe trying to make a comparison which simply is not a good one to make.

        As far as the "bomb them all" approach goes... exactly which country other than the obvious Iraq and Afganistan (who most consider to be the "good fight") has the US hit? There has only been two in the Bush years... one of which the vast majority of people agree on ebing nessessary.

        Your "bomb them all" statement is simply a knee jerk reaction from the angry left.

    • Posted By: WhenStarsTurnBlue @ 06/18/2008 10:43:51 PM

      Wait, Obama wasn't a US senator until 2004? He didn't vote for or against the war.

      • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/18/2008 11:57:30 PM

        My bad. He was AGAINST going to war despite the incorrect (now known... not then) evidence.

      • Posted By: eternity875 @ 06/18/2008 11:49:06 PM

        He voted against the surge that is working.

        • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/19/2008 4:10:34 PM

          Depends on what your definition of working is.

          • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 7:30:25 PM

            And as far as Iraq being a "breeding ground" for terrorists. Most terrorist plots these days that get caught and busted up have the participants citing both Iraq AND Afganistan as being their motivation. Had the US never invaded Iraq... Afganistan would have been a "breeding ground" all on it's own. In fact, I have never heard of prospective terrorists distinguising ONLY Iraq as being a motivation for them.

            I would also suggest looking at the broader picture... does Iraq (and Afganistan) end up killing more terrorists than it breeds? Or visa versa? Terrorists are drawn to Iraq like a moth to a flame where many of them are snuffed out and do not get a chance to reproduce and spread their hate. You have to evaluate the entire "net sum"... not just the part of the equation that fits yor own agenda.

  • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist