Beat the Press

The US Military has announced that the ’surge’ in Iraq has ended. The announcement came shortly after ‘the last of five additional combat brigades left the country.’ The remainder from that brigade left over the weekend, meaning that there are now ‘just under 147,000 American soldiers in Iraq.’

Bush needs to continue to draw down forces to help McCain. In addition McCain needs to make this election not about the war in Iraq but Obams's sincere desire to escalate in Afghanistan and the economy.

If he doesnt he will just be a rudderless ship floating towards the niagra falls that is Nov. election and the ship most certainly will plummet to its death.

Other Iraqi leaders were more directly critical. As Mr. Obama acknowledged, Sunni leaders in Anbar province told him that American troops are essential to maintaining the peace among Iraq's rival sects and said they were worried about a rapid drawdown.

For shame Jazz. Your an apostate. Your a non believer in the Holy One. Obama is as we all know the saviour of the world. He shall lead us to the promised land. He will be walking on water shortly. See it live on the Far left Blogging Network.

Ok, but I would at least like to be acknowledged as the first person to call his plane "Messiah One"

"You can argue either way about how appropriate it is for a candidate not yet in the seat of power to be getting one on one engagements with all of these world leaders"

Well, I think one can make the case that a senator (isn't Obama on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?), traveling with other senators can meet world leaders. And the presumptive nominee of both parties should probably meet with other world leaders. Besides McCain practically pushed Obama into this trip.

Is meeting with world leaders any less appropriate than meeting with military leaders to discuss military strategy? My first thought was that meeting with military leaders was less appropriate, but I'm not so sure.

Anyway since both McCain and Obama have meet with world leaders and military leaders it's pretty much a moot point.

As far as Obama's humility (or lack of)- most of that is due to many people's love affair with him and the concomitant coverage and not so much Obama's own doing. But I do agree with you, Jazz - that Obama should show humility and make it his watchword, simply because so many people do treat him like a rock star. Though I have to admit it's nice to have a smart presidential candidate that many people love- at home and abroad. It's a welcome relief to Bush who just likes to pick fights.

Messiah One- that's good and it disappears into the clouds in what will hopefully be a redemption and saving of America (after Bush). :) Thanks, Jazz!

What I find truly amazing among the left is how they were incensed over Iraq and antiwar and on and on about how we are killing and maiming people but now they want to escalate the war in Afghanistan and go after OBL which might include invading Pakistan.

I for one am more afraid of Obama and this escalate mentality in Afghanistan then I am about leaving some troops in Iraq to keep things stable.

Well I guess the Left/Democrats get to have their war now too. I mean after all I remember Hillary almost complaining that Its too bad 911 didnt happen under Bill Clintons watch cause he would have shown them a thing or two too.

The democrats are just mad that 911 didnt happen under their watches so they could run off and kill stuff themselves. I remember a few days after 911 everyone saying this should be Al Gore doing this and not GWB. They were still angry as hell over Florida.

Bizarre behavior indeed.

Neocon..... OBL is a threat to America, attacked us and has said he will attack again. Saddam never attacked America (though he did deserve to be invaded after he invaded Kuwait) and did not pose a threat to us. Dubya mislead this country and the world into an unnecessary war with Iraq (for his own gain), which distracted us from our sworn enemy.

I love America and we need to defend her against real enemies. I'm against war, but when we're attacked we need to fight back. You sound like a peacenik who would rather give America over to our enemies than fight for our values. Speaking of fighting for our values- Bush doesn't even do that since he's trampled on our very freedoms.

Jazz,
You said:

As the recipient of such an avalanche of good fortune, (with reports that the initial press estimates of Iraq’s support for his withdrawl timetable may have been less than accurate going largely unnoticed) one would think that Senator Obama might make humility his watchword.

It's less than accurate to say that the press was less than accurate ;-)

Please read Greg Sargent's rebuttal of the WaPo editorial and then make up your mind: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com...

Neocon, I don't know if I qualify as part of the "antiwar left" but I did (and still do) oppose the war in Iraq. It's not that I'm anti-war in principle - at least any more than any reasonable person who would prefer war not to be needed at all - but I did support the invasion of Afghanistan, and still do without seeing any inconsistency there. Bush handled the situation with Afghanistan as well as it could have been done, much to his credit, at least in my opinion. There was a valid reason to go in and every avenue of diplomacy was attempted first to give the taliban led government a chance to come in on our side. The job isn't done, in my opinion, and may still be accomplished with enough resources and attention. At least I like to think it's possible.

The key difference between myself and some other supporters is that, much like the situation in Iraq, I have no interest in promoting or building a flowering democracy in Afghanistan. I'd just like to see them track down however much of AQ they can locate and remove them in whatever fashion. And then LEAVE. What the Iraqis and the Afghanis do with their own countries is, in my opinion, their own business. Yes, I'm a bit of an isolationist and I don't apologize for it.

"The democrats are just mad that 911 didnt happen under their watches ..."

I'm not a democrat. No, I'm not mad that 9/11 didn't happen under a democratic president. I'm mad that is happened at all I don't care who or which party was in office. There were cries that it was Clinton's fault anyway. Can you imagine the "outrage(TM)" from the GOP if 9/11 was under an democratic president?

This was an attack on America herself, all of us, not just Republicans or Democrats.

As I've said to SD and DSL before, you continue to throw insults at the "Democrats/Left" and then get mad when you can't have a constructive conversation with said groups. I'm not calling you a Surrender Monkey because you want to leave Afghanistan like I was called when I was against invading Iraq.

Neocon, the job in Afghanistan isn't done. We need to get as much of the Taliban and AQ as we can get. Meanwhile we can help stabilize the country so they can form their own government. I don't want to stay there for long either, but we need to finish the job we started and need to then leave.

He's not only the Messiah, but the Anti-Bush to so many. Maybe he just needs to have a W with red circle and slash on the aircraft.

Here's something short from Andrew Sullivan regarding the Maliki statement:

Not A Slip Of The Tongue

22 Jul 2008 07:08 pm

By Patrick Appel
Zvika Krieger gets some info from a Der Spiegel writer:

The reason the magazine scores so many high level interviews is that the editors agree to allow the subjects to "authorize" the interviews before they go to press. It wasn't just a slip of the tongue, in other words: Maliki not only endorsed Obama's plans for withdrawing from Iraq, but his office then explicitly approved the endorsement before it was printed. The denials, then, were doubly facetious. Spiegel couldn't say so, though, without revealing its embarrassing authorization policy.

Permalink :: TrackBacks (0)

Seems Maliki had every opportunity to vet the Der Speigel article.

and you think that the wapo editorial page is something to be believed?amazing. That paper has suffered greatly since its hayday back in the early 70's. What you see on their editoral page has so little relation to what is really going on that I think they must be sharing the same worldview as bush/mccain. oh, and leave us not forget the oil companies, after all, they are, when all the bs is cast aside, to be found right at the bottom of the pile, cash in hand, ready to give more money to the rep.s. BTW, I have heard-thru reading and even talking to a few of the participants-that the entire Iraq war gig was a deception op of the Iranians. They produced Chalabi to the neocons who in turn produced all the others needed to reinforce the neocon worldview. The neocons even wanted to make Chalibi the president of Iraq. Iran fought an 8 year war with Iraq, neither side could get the upper hand, so Iran decided to go in a different direction. Result; Saddam gone, a very friendly Shia govt installed on their border. Total cost to Iran in treasure and manpower. negligible.

Before George Bush took office, Clinton warned him that Osama bin Laden was a threat. Bush didn't believe him, apparently, and it seems that you don't either. So neocon, you appear to suggest that Bush and McCain say "let it go. We got Saddam Hussain instead."

Your characterization of the Democrats is ridiculous, of course. Had the Democrats been in charge, we wouldn't be at war with Iraq. OBL would likely be on trial in the US or the Hague, or dead.

You seem just as ready to declare defeat in Afghanistan as the GOP has accused Dems of being in Iraq.

Ahh I love how the left is now coming up with all these reasons to have a war in Afghanistan. Gosh sounds like the same reasons we had for invading Iraq. Just the names have changed.

Thats okay you get to have your war and spend billions more and run up another trillion dollars and kill more people and kill more American soldiers just to kill some guys in caves.

Kewl. Gotta love war. It just depends whose in charge as to who gets to complain and who gets to cheer.

What now Im a peacenik and not a Neocon. Wow. Times change.

I was opposed to the war in Afghanistan and I was opposed to the war in Iraq. I still am. OBL is a police action not a lets send 100k troops to track him down.

Lets bomb, kill and blow up stuff to get one man. If we had some spare change floating around perhaps I would not mind, but we do not. WE cant afford this. Weve spent close to a trillion dollars on this and nada.

Now Barak "John Wayne" Obama wants to go in and escalate Afghanistan. For what? To get ONE GUY? Like I said its now the democrats turn and they want to show the world they can fight a war too.

"Yippe Kai yaaaah"

Remember FDR he was a democrat and did a good job. Lets call it a draw and come home.

Neocon,
Newsflash: there already is a war in Afghanistan.

So we have three options. Maintain the status quo, escalate our involvement, or leave.

At this point, I'm not really sure what the best option is, but the status quo seems unsustainable. The Taliban is resurgent, and Al Qaeda is gaining strength daily.

An escalation could very well backfire. Nobody likes the idea of more troops and planes blowing up their country.

Leaving pretty much ensures the Taliban will take over again.

An escalation may very well be worth trying before we abandon the enterprise.

Reasons to have a war in Afghanistan? We never stopped having one, especially since Bush was in a hurry to redirect resources from Afghanistan to Iraq.

I'd just like to see them track down however much of AQ they can locate and remove them in whatever fashion. And then LEAVE. What the Iraqis and the Afghanis do with their own countries is, in my opinion, their own business. Yes, I'm a bit of an isolationist and I don't apologize for it.

And this attitude is precisely what would result in a rapid revival of AQ when a broken state or even no state is left behind. It's just the kind of place that terrorist organizations can make their own while rebuilding.

And this attitude is precisely what would result in a rapid revival of AQ when a broken state or even no state is left behind. It's just the kind of place that terrorist organizations can make their own while rebuilding.

Over-interference is what leads to he creation of AQ type organizations in the first place. We must tread carefully.

Neo, I'm probably the only one here besides you who thinks the whole 9/11 *crime* should have been a police action. It was not an attack by a sovereign nation against which we can war and win. It was a spectacular case of arson, and should have been treated as such.

That said, we have a strategic interest in NOT seeing the Taliban retake Afghanistan.

But why don't you chill a bit with the sarcasm? It doesn't really support your points. This is a political debate site. How I wish there was some self-discipline in our conduct of it.

OK, hang on a second here. Obama is running for President and he's acting like a President? Gasp! Shock! Horror!

I can't be the only one who finds it ridiculous to complain about a Presidential candidate acting presidential.

"I can't be the only one who finds it ridiculous to complain about a Presidential candidate acting presidential."

Equally ridiculous:
>The nonstop directives about what Obama should or should not say in his Germany speech., in speaking to the press,, etc.
> The constant warnings about the DANGERS that lurk behind every FUTURE step he takes during his trip

The last itme I looked, Obama was an adult, and an intelligent one, at that.
He's made some gaffes (the AIPAC speech, and he's scored some points.(Maliki's statement) during his long, exhausting campaign.
I'm quite sure he's aware of the risks, and has decided to take them on .
Now let's see what happens.

It looks like he is surviving much better than most of the agonizing commentators.

"Kewl. Gotta love war. It just depends whose in charge as to who gets to complain and who gets to cheer."

The Usual Suspects were mighty quiet when it came to Bosnia. The only ones to complain were the farthest-of-far-left "warmonger Carter and Clinton" types who are so bizarre they are amusing rather than annoying like the others are so often.

That said, we have a strategic interest in NOT seeing the Taliban retake Afghanistan.

To late!!! But if you really want to understand what happened to the USSR just stay in Afghanistan for a few more years, they will kick our asses.