Dubya hit the nail on the head!

[MechAg94]

From everything I have seen, Iran is a very active sponsor of terrorism.  The people they are sponsoring may be focused on Israel, but I doubt they would have a problem changing targets if they thought they could. 

I don't know if invasion is the answer or not.  Lots of other possibilities.

[wmenorr67]

We've already started a 'war' in Iraq we can't finish

What would be your definition of finish?

An end to American casualties by hostile forces, followed by a drawdown of American military.

Do you really think that we are going to be totally out of Iraq in your lifetime?  I don't think we will be out of Iraq in my lifetime.  The situation in Iraq is going to become another scenerio similar to Korea.

[De Selby]

We've already started a 'war' in Iraq we can't finish

What would be your definition of finish?

An end to American casualties by hostile forces, followed by a drawdown of American military.

Do you really think that we are going to be totally out of Iraq in your lifetime?  I don't think we will be out of Iraq in my lifetime.  The situation in Iraq is going to become another scenerio similar to Korea.

How is that going to happen exactly?

In Korea, the South Koreans at least marginally supported the presence of the US to defend them from an aggressive neighbor.

In Iraq, the population overwhelmingly supports the aggressive neighbor against the US-Iraq and Iran are sister countries now, for all practical purposes.  The main arm of the government's party was part of the Iranian military before the fall of Saddam.  The only realistic challenge to a close alliance with Iran is....Muqtada Al Sadr.  There's just no realistic scenario where that mix turns out to be a stable host for a US military base.

The sad reality is that we will probably leave Iraq once the death toll gets too high to tolerate-but as long as we're there, there will never be an end to attacks on our soldiers.  I'm hoping that whoever comes into office next will have the stones to call a spade a spade, and put an end to the ongoing damage to all parties involved.

[wmenorr67]

Do you realize all it will take for us to leave is for the Government of Iraq (GOI) to tell us, Good-bye.  That hasn't happened yet and I don't see it happening anytime soon.

The "normal" people of Iraq like us and know that we need to be here.  There is a lot of things going on in this country that is getting better.  It takes time.

Rome wasn't built in a day.

[Manedwolf]

SS, I think someone who is actually there has more firsthand experience on the truth of the situation than you do.

Also, IMO, I think the only reason why Mookie hasn't caught a JDAM is because he's a sucky "send guys with AKs that way or something" military leader in terms of strategy, and that's better than an unknown who might actually how to organize his forces into dangerous-to-US-troops strategic maneuvers. AFAIK, Mookie knows nothing of flanking, pincer maneuvers or any such things, and that's good.

[Dannyboy]

Iran has been killing Americans for 30 years.  I think they need more than a good talking to.

[roo_ster]

BHO & the Dems squeal like stuck pigs because the comment was close to the mark.

[Dannyboy]

I'm waiting to see Barry start crying soon.  Every time someone criticizes him, he gets all bent out of shape.  How can someone with such thin skin be President? 

[Manedwolf]

I'm waiting to see Barry start crying soon.  Every time someone criticizes him, he gets all bent out of shape.  How can someone with such thin skin be President? 

He just threw a snit, and then now just declared that he would, indeed engage in direct talks with Iran.

So he's mad because Bush pointed out something that he just confirmed he would do? I'm confused.

[MechAg94]

It's not like Bush has to worry about offending anyone.  His approval levels aren't going to go any lower. 

[Perd Hapley]

Bad people across the ocean CAN and WILL hurt us.  (And you don't have to be a Democrat to speak like a true Democrat.) 

Iran was responsible for 9/11.............how? 

Another stupid question.  I'd be really shocked if I hadn't seen the same dishonest misdirection from your side, time and time again.  I said they CAN hurt us.  Didn't say they DID. 

[The Annoyed Man]

Another stupid question.  I'd be really shocked if I hadn't seen the same dishonest misdirection from your side, time and time again.  I said they CAN hurt us.  Didn't say they DID.

Uh-huh. Since when do you rightwing radicals advocate and support prior restraint?  Oh, yeah, since GWB took office.  But you don't like any 'prior restraint' place on you, do you?  Only on other people.  Thankfully, you're a failed, dying breed. 

[Perd Hapley]

I thought prior restraint was a censorship issue.  Please explain how it relates to the current discussion. 

[The Annoyed Man]

I thought prior restraint was a censorship issue.  Please explain how it relates to the current discussion. 

"Prior restraint" is the concept that government should exercise its police powers to prevent someone from doing something (harmful) they MIGHT do, rather than hold them accountable afterwards.  Gun control is an example of 'prior restraint' (although probably not the best example).   In international terms, you might think of the concept as "a pre-emptory strike".  IOW, hit them before they hit you.  It's what we did to Iraq.  They MIGHT have WMD's that they MIGHT use against us.  That justified an invasion and the continuing occupation.  Same with Iran.  They MIGHT have nukes (but they have no ICBM's, so there's ZERO chance they could lob one on Missouri), so that 'justifies' military action.     Jeebus, I'll be glad (along with 900 million+ other people around the world) when this administration is done.

[Perd Hapley]

That is bull feces for at least two significant reasons.  Let's see if you can figure them out.

The current disapproval of preemptive war is stupid.  Future generations will laugh. 

[Monkeyleg]

Leaving arguments about Iraq aside, Google "Bush appeasement." It took me a long time to find his speech. Every search result was a story about Obama's outrage over the comment.

Yeah, I'd say Bush struck a nerve. And Obama's mad because he's been outed again.

[wmenorr67]

Looks as if George W. is going to do a little more damage to the Democrats before he leaves office.

With them fighting over the nomination and then trying to explain how they will deal with the safety of the USA, they may not get it straightened out in time for 2012.

[De Selby]

Do you realize all it will take for us to leave is for the Government of Iraq (GOI) to tell us, Good-bye.  That hasn't happened yet and I don't see it happening anytime soon.

The "normal" people of Iraq like us and know that we need to be here.  There is a lot of things going on in this country that is getting better.  It takes time.

Rome wasn't built in a day.

How do you explain the consistent polls showing something like 80 percent of Iraqis wanting American forces gone from the country then? All phoney?

Sorry, but the Maliki government isn't representative of its people, and it has no choice at this point-relying on the decisions of a government that would likely be killed if it kicked out the U.S. does not make sense as a means of assessing Iraqi opinion.

Rather, look at what happens when the government that is inviting U.S. troops to stay tries to fight: mutiny by the thousands, and a disgraceful defeat at the hands of Al Sadr's rag tag militia.  That is the sign of an unpopular crony regime, not the foundations of a new rome.

[De Selby]

SS, I think someone who is actually there has more firsthand experience on the truth of the situation than you do.

Also, IMO, I think the only reason why Mookie hasn't caught a JDAM is because he's a sucky "send guys with AKs that way or something" military leader in terms of strategy, and that's better than an unknown who might actually how to organize his forces into dangerous-to-US-troops strategic maneuvers. AFAIK, Mookie knows nothing of flanking, pincer maneuvers or any such things, and that's good.

Yes, but the key factor for this discussion is how Iraqis see Muqtada, not how the US could kill him.  The fact is that he is clearly more in control of his base than Al Maliki, and that he beat the Iraqi Security Forces hands down-they surrendered by the thousands or simply refused to fight because Al Maliki's government is that unpopular.

The next election in Iraq will be either one of two things:  Massive fraud, or massive turnout for anti-American politicians like Al Sadr.

It's bad enough that former units of the Iranian military are the only bastion of support for the current government; it is not going to get better for the US anytime soon.

[xavier fremboe]

The Whitehouse then went on to DENY the remark was referencing Obama.

If the shoe fits...

The remark was ostensibly aimed at Jimmy Carter.  Who also tried to negotiate with terrorists..

Obama jumped on it because he wants to negotiate with terrorists and extremists, too.  He apparently found the shoe nice and comfy, like a Ferragamo loafer.

[wmenorr67]

How do you explain the consistent polls showing something like 80 percent of Iraqis wanting American forces gone from the country then? All phoney?

Sorry, but the Maliki government isn't representative of its people, and it has no choice at this point-relying on the decisions of a government that would likely be killed if it kicked out the U.S. does not make sense as a means of assessing Iraqi opinion.

Rather, look at what happens when the government that is inviting U.S. troops to stay tries to fight: mutiny by the thousands, and a disgraceful defeat at the hands of Al Sadr's rag tag militia.  That is the sign of an unpopular crony regime, not the foundations of a new rome.

Show me these polls.  Polls can be made to say anything.  Try talking to the people in the streets.

Maliki is doing better but still doesn't control the government like he should.  There are lot of things going on behind the scenes even the politicians don't get to see.

[Perd Hapley]

The remark was ostensibly aimed at Jimmy Carter.  Who also tried to negotiate with terrorists..

Obama jumped on it because he wants to negotiate with terrorists and extremists, too.  He apparently found the shoe nice and comfy, like a Ferragamo loafer.

The only person he mentioned was a Senator that wanted to talk to Hitler.  I presume he meant Joe Kennedy.  Edit:  He quoted William Borah, not Joseph Kennedy.  Conservatives have been making comments like Bush's since 9-11, back when Obama was an unknown. 

Obama COMPLETELY screwed up on this one.  Instead of whining about what Bush said, and denying that he would negotiate, the smart move would have been to immediately agree with Bush's statement, to show that the remark did not apply to him.  Unfortunately for Obama, it may be the case that other Democrats rushed in to defend him, thereby forcing him into his current, weak, position on the matter.  Who knows? 

[209]

 
More empty fearmongering.  If it's that serious destroy Tehran this afternoon.  Otherwise stop the ridiculous macho posing.

The funny thing is, we don't have to destroy Tehran.  It's a simple exercise to destroy Iran's nuke capabilities without sending one American service member into harm's way.  Simply targeting their nuke facilities with the proper explosives will set them back to the stone age (not that the average citizen in that utopia exists at a much higher level that that now).

We would create a mess they couldn't clean up for years.  We'd kill highly trained people they couldn't replace for years.  They'd go broke trying to refinance their facilities.

IMO, all of the talk about a ground war in Iran is overstated.  We don't need to go there.  Iran has a short reach as far as the big picture is concerned as of this point.  But, if we allow them to gain much more ground, their reach is going to be something we can't live with.  Anyone who thinks they can be trusted with nukes is an ostrich.  Actually, that's not fair to the ostrich- because all an ostrich does is stick its heads in the sand.

In the coming years, Iran is going to develop something and they won't play nice.  We stand a 50-50 chance Israel will do a preemptive strike.  That's going to create a fun issue.  We can't appease them.  We can't negotiate with them.

[Perd Hapley]

That is bull feces for at least two significant reasons.  Let's see if you can figure them out.

OK, I'll help you, Paddy.

1.  You are confusing international relations with the relationship between a govt. and an individual.  Iran isn't subject to American law, so prior restraint and gun control couldn't really apply.  To use a phrase much loved by the anti-war side, Iran is a sovereign nation.  Relationships between nations are more akin to that of two individuals in a state of anarchy, than they are to a govt. and a subject.

2.  There's a big difference between what you call prior restraint, and dealing with an immediate threat. 

[agricola]

It was a terrible analogy to make by Bush.  After all, while Chamberlain does come in for justified criticism both for appeasement and his inept handling of the war up until he was kicked out by the Commons, he was actually dealing with Hitler.  As much as Ahmedinajad is a deeply unpleasant human being, he is not Hitler.

Obama did mess this up now though, methinks he doth protest too much.  Good comments from McCain though about what he would talk to Ahmedinajad, after all its not as if they have that much in common.