… at least in the general.
100 years of Iraq? That crosses the line between Straight Talk and Old Crank Talk. Would that no one were being maimed, wounded or killed. Nope, he's gonna lose. That kind of talk is just too insulting to too many people who have had enough of the garbage. Bye, John.
Please share widely!
Just FYI, when I try to reach BMG by leaving off the www (ie just bluemassgroup.com), it comes up site not found. That’s usually a server setting, but where you’re hosted by Soapblox, I assume they’re the ones you gotta deal with. đŸ™‚
Huh?
With IE v. 7, all I have to do is type “bluemassgroup.com” onto the address line (no http, no colon, no double backslash) and the site comes up very nicely.
His jaw drops open.
I saw this comment in one of Matt Stoller’s posts on Open Left tonight and it really resonated with me:
<
p>
<
p>After watching Ghosts of Rwanda, Frontline’s horrifying two-hour examination of the Rwandan genocide, for the past three days in class, there’s not a whole lot to be said for an aging coot who blithely declares fifty years or a hundred years in Iraq is acceptable. There does not appear to be a limit to man’s inhumanity to man, even after we’ve seen a century of slaughter that should have taught us something.
<
p>He’s simply not fit for the presidency.
As much as I want to agree with your point, it seems that McCain can (and will) get away with saying just about anything on Iraq, and he’ll get a pass. He’s the war hero (not the douchebag), and he’s also turning into the comeback kid as Romney & Rudy freefall. The media needs McCain nearly as much as the GOP does.
Besides, what’s the difference? As someone famous once said of Iraq:
“History, we don’t know. We’ll all be dead.“
BTW….you seem to have your finger on the pulse of the GOP locally….what’s your prediction for NH?
Do you believe we should leave South Korea, Germany, Japan etc… If you don’t then you are being hypocritical. He said that after peace is won, the war was won in 2003 by the way, that if the Iraq government wants us we should stay. There is nothing wrong with that in my book. These words are being twisted.
When asked on the November 27, 2007 episode of the Charlie Rose Show if he forsaw a South Korea-type model for Iraq, McCain said he did not:
<
p>
<
p>But last June, as Think Progress points out in the link above, he was talking up the South Korea-style plan. So McCain was for the South Korea model before he was against the South Korea model before he was for the South Korea model. It seems McCain took Comedy Central’s “Indecision 2008” slogan to heart.
<
p>Perhaps McCain has spent far too much time on the same campaign trail as Multiple Choice Mitt.
The majority of the Iraqi parliament want a timetable.
The majority of the Iraqi people, as of the latest polling, want a timetable.
The only ones who do not are the Bush government and the Maliki government. There’s certainly not an overwhelming call for the US to stay.
From a May 11, 2007 Washington Post article:
<
p>Iraqi Lawmakers Back Bill on U.S. Withdrawal
<
p>BAGHDAD, May 10 — A majority of members of Iraq’s parliament have signed a draft bill that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and freeze current troop levels.
voters have been schooled for more than a generation to vote based on how the vote makes you feel. This is called “character,” but really its just marketing.
<
p>So I’ll admit this hands our nominee–whoever he or she will be–a potential weapon. But it does not follow that just because (a) most voters want to end the war and (b) McCain is diametrically opposed to doing that, ergo (c) most voters won’t vote against McCain.
From her website.
<
p>
<
p>McCain’s aims and Ms. Tsongas’ seem the same. To Be able to respond to events in the region.
Which would mean the Iraqi’s would have to be something besides mongrels and animals to us and each other. Northern Ireland figured it out, and Catholics and Protestants have far less in common than Sunnis and Shiites. We can come up with politically correct excuses why they can’t seem to stop shooting and blowing up everyone til the cows come home, doesn’t change anything.
I don’t think the majority of voters would be that upset with this comment, actually. The U.S. bases in Japan, Germany, and Korea, for example, are generally, I think, considered to serve our interests quite well — and Iraq has all that oil. I’m not recommending this policy — personally, I think the age of empires has ended — but I don’t think, given the caveat that McCain inserted about it being a peaceful presence, which of course is a pipe dream, that the idea itself would be a huge point of disagreement.
He is merely saying we will likely have a presence there for years to come. In my view that was the whole purpose of the Iraq invasion, to secure a central Middle Eastern staging ground right in the middle of the middle east and protect that oil from potential Russian or Chinese attack. Dont call that a crazy thought, its exactly what we did in Germany as well to protect GDP resources.
<
p>So much like we will have a large presence in Germany we will have a large presence in Iraq for several years to come and this is not entirely a bad thing, nor is it a good thing either, but it will be the reality of the situation.
<
p>The old type I insurgency is over, there was a time when a US withdrawl would have done a lot of good, but the insurgents began fighting amongst each other and now there is a greater risk of Iraqi on Iraqi violence than Iraqi on US violence. Much like cop killing rates go down in inner cities during gang wars, this is just a whole country and for better or for worse we’re stuck as the police.