Thursday, July 17, 2008

Is the Iraq War Over?

See this yesterday? I meant to mention it on the show, but here it is.
Michael Yon also declares the war over.

Posted by Victoria Taft, 11am - 3pm KPAM 860 at 09:44

19 comments:

  1. Have we accomplished the goals?

    I did read that Iraq wants a timeline for our withdrawal, and if our mission is to free Iraq, then should they not be able to dictate this to us?
    If we are not occupiers, then they should have this right?

    Or, for the sake of protecting a resource vital to our own defense are we occupiers?
    ReplyDelete
  2. We'll get out ONLY after God tells bush when we can..
    ReplyDelete
  3. Strange things are happening. In a major flip-flop the administration is sending Undersecretary of State William J. Burns to Geneva this weekend to sit face-to-face with Iranian nuclear negotiator Said Jalili.
    ReplyDelete
  4. Isn't that what you all wanted all along, iago?
    ReplyDelete
  5. I could have sworn that if you negotiated with Iran you would be Chamberlain? Now that Bush has seen the light and has taken Obama's lead, I hope he doesn't send Faux News correspondent Ollie North to Iran. We all know what happened last time a Bush negotiated with Iran......Iran got some great weapons.
    ReplyDelete
  6. I could have sworn that if you negotiated with Iran you would be Chamberlain? Now that Bush has seen the light and has taken Obama's lead, I hope he doesn't send Faux News correspondent Ollie North to Iran. We all know what happened last time a Bush negotiated with Iran......Iran got some great weapons.
    ReplyDelete
  7. Have we accomplished the goals? Not every single one but we're accumulating alot of completion at the moment.
    As a matter of fact, Iraq asking that American forces eventually withdraw is a sign of success. After the "victory" in Korea, the Koreans still don't want the American's out in any genuine fashion... and they unquestionably were overjoyed that the Americans intervened. Iraq's government obviously feels that the time at which they will no longer need American help to control militants and keep their nation in order is approaching and this is a massive success for the Bush Administration. Looking forward, we can now see a world where Iraq is an autonomous neutral-to-friendly Middle Eastern nation. Ultimately, if certain of the liberal crowd are going to whine, whimper, and cry about Bush's attack in Iraq, then it's fair to hand him plaudits for this sign of immense policy success.
    ReplyDelete
  8. iago, it's really sad to see you expose your shallowness of understanding and comprehension all the time. Do you ever actually read articles or simply rely on the spoonfed headlines laid out by our National Media?

    From the article at CNN,

    "McCormack said Burns will be under strict orders to listen to what Iran has to say but not engage in one-on-one discussions with the Iranian negotiator.

    Burns will also hammer home the point that any direct talks between the United States and Iran will occur only after Iran suspends its enrichment program, McCormick said."

    Even though the meet isn't what portrayed, it soes sort of throw a crimp in Dems claims of Bush pushing for war with Iran, doesn't it?

    Bush has said all along that European partners were discussing the issue with Iran. Dems cranked up their fearmongering crying he was pushing for war.

    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is quoted in the much despised Fox News as saying, "the shift in policy is a signal the administration is serious about diplomacy, but does not mean Washington is ready for open-ended discussions with Iran. Such talks can only occur after Tehran halts activities that could lead to development of atomic weapons."
    ReplyDelete
  9. This is yet another example of Barack Obama demonstrating superior judgment! Two months ago George Bush calls Obama an appeaser for wanting to talk to the Iran and here he is adopting that position! Obama preaches for months that we need more troops in Afghanistan and his opponent John McCain attacks him for saying that then adopts that position. Doesn't this country need a president who gets it right on the first try, wouldn't that be refreshing for a change! This guy will make a great prez!
    ReplyDelete
  10. The war has been over for some time, but now there is hope that the occupation is over.

    Reuters:

    Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a German magazine he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months.

    In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.

    "U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

    It is the first time he has backed the withdrawal timetable put forward by Obama.
    ReplyDelete
  11. Kloin, if you desire an imitation of Nazi Europe, vote for Obama.

    Maybe you can tell us all why Obama's website is scrubbing mention of his call for a "national civilian security force funded on the same level as the military."

    Is that what you call "getting it right the first time?"

    As for the meet with Iranian officials, you really should try reading an entire article, not just the headline.

    Al Maliki's interview with Der Speigel seems a bit of pandering to Germany, but you did not post where he said he was not endorsing Obama.

    Then again, BUsh has said all along, "as the Iraqi's stand up, we will stand down." With the reduced violence in Iraq, admitted by nearly all except he most ardent America and Bush haters, that is what has been happening. Yet, moonbats wish to credit Obama, a 143 day experience Senator, with the outcome.

    If Al Qaeda resurges in Iraq as we drawdown, will Obama take the blame too?
    ReplyDelete
  12. Sounds to me you want to ignore Al Maliki, the democratically elected prime minister of Iraq. He wants the US troops to leave. It is time to leave. If you are suggesting that the Bush administration knows best and that we should stay,then based on its track record you are very, very wrong.
    ReplyDelete
  13. Ignore Maliki? No, but perhaps you might.

    According to the Left-winged BBC, That isn't exactly what Maliki said.

    Amazing that the Bush hating BBC ends their article with, "when Mr Obama visits Baghdad, as he is expected to later this month, he is unlikely to find that the Iraqi government is quite as set on demanding deadlines for US withdrawal as he would like to think."
    ReplyDelete
  14. Oh, I forgot.

    Obama isn't quite ready to walk on water yet, in pite of how you all worship him.

    Hmmmm. Haven't we been warned about "false messiah's" before?
    ReplyDelete
  16. Maliki said the Americans feel that leaving without winning is a defeat but Maliki said that removing all troops from Iraq is a sign of Victory which makes all the sense in the world.

    The Administration does not have a Definition of Winning. They have been asked that question many times and can't provide a response. If bringing the troops home when the Iraq government says, "We have this", then there is no definition of winning.

    Our Troops have a lot to be proud of. In the meantime in Afaganstan 9 Soldiers lost their lives because we don't have the necessary Troops. These heroes were getting ready to come home in a week or so. They were killed by reportedly 200 insurgents. As Sen. Obama said isn't the real fight in Afganstan where we should have been all along rather than the diversion we have been living for the past 7 years that have cost us in lives, treasure and now caused a Recession of great magnitude.
    ReplyDelete
  17. Uh, wacky, you really should read the last two articles I linked to before making assertions as to what Al Maliki said.
    ReplyDelete
  18. Were it not for he *!#! kicking Marines, Army, Special forces, and the rest of the American forces, this wouldn't be a discussion.
    Maliki's playing for political points in (another) upcoming election. He's got to look tough with Americans. He's using the Obama time table to eek out some sort of concession from the Bush Administration to look good. Bush et al know timetables will work against us and the Iraqi forces.
    But can you believe this conversation?
    Elections? Political viability?
    Thank you George Bush and the United States of America that this would be a conversation point.
    As our special forces seep into Pakistan and continue the fight in Afghanistan, we know victory is inevitable--until the democrats begin playing politics.
    How long do you think it will be before they start playing politics with the supplemental bills again?
    Watch: they'll insist American forces will have to have no carbon footprint or something.
    ReplyDelete
  19. Now, who was it that has been steadily saying, "as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down?"

    HINT: It wasn't Obama!
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)