The surge was a one time strategy to clean up a war that had gotten out of control. The FACTS are that generals on the ground wanted more troops at least three years before the surge. so you don't get to claim victory for doing something you should have done years before if you actually listened to military personnel secondly, what have we accomplished in iraq since the beginning of the war third, how long did the surge last? the surge was over before obama got into office. it was a one time fix, to a growing problem, of not fighting the war correctly in the first place. lastly, there is no victory in iraq, no one can define it, and the accomplishment biden is likely referring to is being alble to leave, without having to have troops there for the next 100 years (remembe that little nugget from mccain) we should've never been there, and the fact that we can leave without leaving troops is an accomplishment
you can't define it, as a huge supporter of the war that's sad. I'm not going around claiming victory for anything so the onus isn't on me to describe something that I don't think exists
Yes, you do. To think otherwise is just wrong. You deserve criticism for your previous mistake and credit for you correct actions. You'd have to ask Biden what he meant. For this discussion we'll use something like your guess below: getting the troops out of Iraq and leaving it relatively stable. So, assuming that we "get the troops out of Iraq and leave it relatively stable", you disagree that the surge and other subsequent Bush era strategies will be the primary cause of that result? If so, that's fine. That was the second point of contention I mentioned that is a logical rebuttal. This should be the point of your disagreement with the idea that Bush deserves credit for the "great achievement". You're arguing semantics here. If you don't like the term "winning in iraq", then don't use it. Just assume we're talking about whatever Biden is talking about. Any arguing about what winning in iraq means is irrelevant unless you're arguing with Biden. Oh, and Obama plans to leave troops in Iraq in much the same way McCain did. I'm not sure there's much difference in their policies there, other than tone and rhetoric, so I honestly don't see how that can be the thing that differentiates Obama and allows him to claim the bulk of the "great achievement".
just to be clear, the surge was about more than sending more troops. the key point was a change in stratergery, w/o which the additional troops would have been just more wood on the fire. i recommend reading michael yon's book, if you're really interested, in fact, i've offered to buy it for a few folks around here, and offer that was always refused, oddly enough.
no one is not giving bush credit for cleaning up his mess, however the surge is not victory or conclusion or whatever freakin term you want to use, there is still work to be done. if neither you nor basso will offer up a definition, this is a stupid argument. there is no subsequent bush era strategy, even bush, cheney or basso don't make that claim. huh, I'm not arguing with anyone, there is no winning in iraq, leaving iraq stable is an "accomplishment". did the surge help that yes, however as in the above quote, there is nothing bush has done other than that to leave it stable. he gets credit for cleaning up his mess, the war should have never gotten to the point to need a surge. a point you haven't addressed link?
Huh? I did offer a definition in that exact part of the post you quoted: "getting the troops out of Iraq and leaving it relatively stable." It's similar to your guess. We don't know what Biden meant, but we both agree on this reasonable guess, right? Hmm... I think you're talking about something different than what I am (and basso previously was) talking about. I'll try to lay it out more clearly. 1) We've established that for the purposes of the discussion, the "achievement" Biden is referring to is getting the troops out of Iraq and leaving it relatively stable. We're also assuming that it actually happens at some point in the near future. 2) The credit for this achievement can be given regardless of what happened previously with the war. In fact, the earlier screw ups (including going to war in the first place) are why that can even be considered an achievement. So it is irrelevant that the war should have never gotten to that point when discussing credit for that specific achievement. You keep harping on what happened before the war, perhaps to expose basso's hypocrisy, but for the question at hand it is irrelevant. (Note for what it is worth that I generally agree with your assessment of the pre-surge Iraq War.) 3) The Bush administration changed strategy in the Iraq War, and implemented the surge, as well as other things not specifically related to troop escalation. I don't remember all the details, but they include working with the people previously fighting us and bringing them into the fold. So there were several things done that appeared to change the momentum of the war. The decision to start withdrawing troops was also made while Bush was President, and had a lot to do with Iraqi government decisions. 4) The real discussion should be whether those changes I mentioned in 3) were the primary factors in leading to the potential achievement, or whether something else devised and implemented by Obama that has so far been unmentioned deserves the credit for the potential achievement. Does that make sense? Do you really disagree with 2)? Do you accept my explanation in 3)? Do you have an argument for 4)? It just seems you were focusing more on the possible hypocrisy of Bush supporters, but the point basso originally made was valid on its own and it was being attacked as if it wasn't (rather than rebutted as if it was valid but wrong). What would you like a link for? The fact that Obama's Iraq policy includes leaving non-combat troops indefinitely? Or the fact that McCain was referring to something similar with his 100 years comment?
This is what was posted with the image. In my opinion, the intent is either overtly or covertly racist. Looks pretty overt to me. I would post an image of what the President is being portrayed as, in reality, but it is offensive. You know, those little fellows that people used to have in the front of their house in some parts of Houston, and elsewhere. The painted Black figure in a funny costume holding a lantern, or a ring to tie a horse to, and the like. It is a deliberate attempt to portray the President in a racist way, in my opinion, and certainly doesn't contribute to anything, unless you simply like that sort of thing. Change! Barack Obama Mocked at This Year’s Mardi Gras Parade Wednesday, February 17, 2010, 5:47 AM Jim Hoft Mary Rose Rybak at First Thoughts reported on the floats in this year’s New Orleans Mardi Gras parade. One float “Experiment of His Own Power” mocked America’s arrogant president. Mardi Gras has become a celebration of vice before forty days of, well, supposed virtue. It’s one of those fun curiosities about the culturally Christian world: People eat and drink gluttonously as a sort of religious observance. One of the ways vice is simultaneously vilified and celebrated is on the floats that parade through New Orleans, filled with masked people who throw beads and toys to the passersby. In one parade this year, spectators enjoy a hilarious twenty-float lineup of what one might call winners of the Greatest Vices of the Year: Senator Edwards, Senator Vitter, and Governor Sanford are spotlighted on a lust-themed float as “Politicians Gone Wild!”; New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nabin is painted “asleep at the wheel,” accused of negligence and bad time management on a sloth-themed float; and Bernard Madoff appears on a pyramid as “Pharaoh Made-off” on a greed-themed float that describes him as “the modern-day Judas who was traitor to his own tribe for only 20 million pieces of silver.” Among these scandalous float figures is President Barack Obama. On a pride-themed float called “Experiment of His Own Power,” Obama is compared to “The Proud One” of Dante’s Inferno, posing with his Nobel Peace Prize medal, next to several other representations of him—along with Oscar and Heisman Trophy awards, he appears as a five-star general, president of General Motors, and as the “healthcare-expert” Surgeon General—all engulfed by the flames of hell. Is this the rant of a few comic float-makers, or is it a sign of a graver discontent Obama faces from the American people? For many, it’s looking grim: The effect his leadership has had on Katrina recovery-efforts, for instance, is at least as questionable as the promised improvements in foreign policy and economic stimulus. In related news… After destroying the economy and tripling the national debt his first year in office, a majority of Americans believe that Barack Obama does not deserve a second term. http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.co...ama-mocked-at-new-orleans-mardis-gras-parade/
Do you seriously believe that or are you saying that to discredit those who oppose the exhaulted one? Maybe I just don't see it but I can't find anything racist about the float. They didn't draw him as a "black face" or any other way (except poorly). If being a bad artist is some new form of racism than I guess I will have to stop drawing.
to add to my post, since i can't edit. were all the other floats making fun of white politicians racially motivated as well? what about the ray nagan one? just curious because i don't see any outrage about those.
