wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Much of what the candidates say on a day to day basis is political maneuvering with the goal of making the most of Youtube / 24 hour news cycle broadcasting and follow up punditry. Make no mistake:
> If elected Obama will be focus on getting US troops and our coalition of corporate security firms out at the earliest pragmatic moment.
> McCain will be forever pressing the "snooze button" on withdrawal. "Victory" will always be just around the corner no matter how many bomb chuckers move to Pakistan.
Americans: You can send a clear message to the American people that you do not wish to remain as occupiers of their country by voting for Obama on Nov 2. You already sent this message during the 2006 congressional election. Let's stay consistent. Withdrawal will happen.
MY PLAN:
If the Kurds and Sunni want "competent / professional" US security / protection.....WHY DONT WE JUST LET THEM HIRE BLACKWATER, CUSTER BATTLES AND HALLIBURTON DIRECTLY....AND PAY FOR THOSE $250 PER HOUR SOLDIERS WITH THEIR OIL MONEY!!

And STILL the Obama kool-aid is working for many...

Barack W. Bush?
Of late, Obama seems to be promising a third Bush administration.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWYwMWQzOTVhYTMyYTBjNmRlZWRmNjBmOGU4MzZlNTk=

www.votenader.org/

"Obama wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically, he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."

Steven Weiss, I don't find the NYTimes article as reassuring as you seem to. McCain and Bush can have as much "victory" as they want in Iraq. That won't change the fact that it was a self-created problem and not on al Qaeda's radar at all before we went in. Pakistan is entirely different - they are involved with al Qaeda and the Taliban in ways and at levels that we don't fully understand; they offer them a true geographical haven; radicals have a significant political/governmental/social constituency there; Pakistan actually has nuclear weapons, along with a very unstable political/governmental situation.

So Pakistan is much closer to being the "central front" that Bush and McCain so fatuously label Iraq to be, and is a much more crucial venue for confronting actual transnational Islamic terrorist threats.

steven weiss:

You're speaking of the jihadi group. The jihadi groups are a minor force in Iraq, the larger political and military forces are the variety of Iraqi nationalist groups in the country like the Mahdi Army etc. So the surge moved our enemies (who werent there before we invaded Iraq) to another part of the world that we've overlooked as part of our goals in and around Afghanistan.

So, the concept of "withdrawing under fire" is a bit of misnomer since the situation has NOT changed because of the escalation.

sounds to me like obhama plan mirrors the plan that the administration has advocated for some time regardless of the serg. When the time is right we will gradually leave.

What many people are saying, but some seem to overlook, is what David Mark just said a few moments ago: improvements in security are also an argument for a speedy withdrawal. Personally, I've always only supported a withdrawal provided it is in the best interest of Iraqi civilians. Obama's stance on reflecting the situation on the ground is an expression of this: if a reduced American presence is in fact making things less stable and more violent, then morally we have no choice but to stay until order is restored, distasteful as that may be to those (such as myself) who opposed the war to begin with.

Unfortunately the American people, as usual, have been left in the dark on the "Cheney" agenda [on the "US International conglomerate"] which is now evident. Since this whole"disaster" has been planned before the first stolen election in 2000, and materialized in the second stolen election of '04; and which I would add Congress was completely complicit in. Therefore it is unlikely a withdrawl in 16 months or less is sound or even remotely possible. Maliki is obviously posturing to save face in Iraq. The US has too much invested in private contractors and mercenaries active in Iraq. I agree with Ghosh, it will be at least 10 years before the US leaves.

It's almost funny to see all these people discuss the war all the while very carefully avoiding to acknowledge the fact that dominance in the Middle East would be a huge advantage of the US and that withdrawal is on the table only because the bear got stung by the bees.

Operation OIL indeed.

Lying is spelled lying not lieing

This whole debate over the "status of forces" suggests that our reasons for staying in Iraq may be just as hidden from the American public as our reasons for invading Iraq.

Our strategic position in Iraq within the broader the middle east - including 1. against Iran 2. not in the holy land of Saudi Arabia 3. on top of all that oil - is probably the only constant in our entrance and continuing presence there.

The situation is maybe going from awful to bad but
life in Iraq is still hell. A woman suicide bomber blew herself and 15 other bystanders apart only a few days ago, beware about re-defining normality only because the US invasion accustomed us to incredible violence

The government exists only inside the Green Zone, and markets still blow up. Neighborhoods that used to be mixed are now seqregated - wander into the wrong one and you're dead. Even William F. Buckley said we'd lost.

People are questioning the honesty of Obama because his views have shifted over the course of a year but are ignoring the extreme level of dishonesty of the Bush administration in every aspect of its governance.
There is a difference between adapting your point of view to changing circumstances and lieing continuously until the truth is forced out of you.

Today the NY Times reports that jihadist websites have been urging fighters to go to Pakistan rather than Iraq to fight, because insurgents have suffered serious setbacks in Iraq and it is probably a lost cause for them. That is, I think, what McCain means by victory. Obama suggested when the surge started that we not undertake it,and instead start an immediate withdrawal. We would have been withdrawing under fire, under very chaotic circumstances,and would certainly have faced an enormous defeat in Iraq.

The surge worked! And just in time for my summer travel plans. Let's go to Iraq, where things are going swimmingly thanks to the brave, bold surge.

yeah, putting more soldiers in Iraq per square foot would reduce violence especially when we add the fact that PAYING the resistance forces to not kill our troops apparently defines the new "success".

Sad really, that folks are saying that as long as we focus the gun at someone we will have peace.

What success?! Millions of Iraqis are living as refugees. Oil production is still down. Iraqi infrastructure has been destroyed. Whole regions are off-limits to reporters (like Falluja). And now McCain, Bush and others are seeking yet another war -- with Iran.

What success?

McCain didn't know the Suni and Shiah were two ethnic groups in Iraq and he got upset when asked who the Kurds were and said don't try to confuse him.

Do you want a President who doesn't know the top 3 ethnic groups of Iraq, a country we are in occupation-war with? Think about those reptelian eyes focusing on all that oil.

The surge did not work! This is the big lie that has been effectively achieved. Nice work, media.

The nationalistic Sunni insurgents turned on their extreme al-Qaeda allies in Iraq. We then moved into ally ourselves with the insurgents we were formerly fighting. They said, OK, we will take your support and stop fighting you. We could have withdrew troops and had the same decline in violence. Because we negotiated with our enemies!

Throw in the Sadr ceasefire and voila, you have the success of the surge as declared by Bush and parroted by the journalist class.

The increased military forces had very, very little to do with it, except maybe encouraging a ceasefire from Sadr. But he is still there, still strong, and will be there long after we are gone.

I love this support the surge line, the surge means it took them 4 years to figure out they didn't have enough troops, regardless of whether it works or not its 4 years too late. Yet these yahoos keep patting themselves on the back like its some great accomplishment- yay! surge.

We stole oil! Why don't you bring that up?!?!

McCain was/is still wrong there should have been hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq. That was the general estimate in 2003.

Many people voted for Obama for his stance on the Iraq, now he is abandoning that stance! Now we are stuck with him as the Democratic candidate. Why bother to vote!!???

The bottom line for me is, I trust Obama's judgment more. McCain seems to have much stronger gut convictions than Obama, which I respect, but I think McCain's judgment on Iraq has been terrible. I trust Obama in the sense that I think he'll have smart, relatively apolitical advisors who will be flexible in their approach to the Iraq situation, whereas I expect McCain to bring in more of the neocon ideologues who got us into this mess.

The ACLU recommends a no vote on H.R. 6304, which grants sweeping wiretapping authority to the government with little court oversight and ensures the dismissal of all pending cases against the telecommunication companies.

• H.R. 6304 permits only minimal court oversight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what or where will actually be tapped.

• H.R. 6304 ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping programs over the last 7 years. The test in the bill is not whether the government certifications were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the government did with our communications will be killed.

Is this another mideast endorsement of Obama: Maliki and Iraq government endorses Obama, or at least his Iraq plan.

There is a major difference between McCain and Obama: Obama's policy is built around finding ways to leave Iraq, McCain's (like Bush's) is built around finding ways to stay.

McCain and Barbie want to stay in Iraq for 100 years and build a mansion over there. Then he'll have 9 houses instead of 8.

Iran war is going to happen.

Sorry - incomplete comment: Should read "The door wouldn't be left wide open to Iran."

As I ponder how Obama might withdraw from Iraq, I wonder if it's possible for him to reposition troops in Iraq, perhaps shifting forces to Kurdish Iraq, Kuwait, and out of the surge posture in the cities. That way, the door wouldn't be left wide open, the anti-al Qaeda mission can happen, and we'd no longer be in an "occupation" posture.

Obama is "nuancing"? First of all, that's not a word. But how come when the current administration doesn't want a timetable, it's a question of Iraqi sovereignty. But Obama gets to nuance his way to the same conclusion without the same question being asked of him?

How will we conduct our resource wars if we leave Iraq? Yeah right.

After Obama's vote yesterdays on H.R. 6304, it seems like his form of "change" is suspect. Unfortunately his actions speak much louder than his words.

@9 - no one will invade, they'll just bomb the crap out of it. Sure - we've got people in there now covertly, but my guess is that no formal invasion will take place.

It is still going to happen and it will be worse. Bad times ahead.

Out now is what makes most sense.

Obama will make no change in Iraq and anyone who thinks so is just fooling themselves.

Obama is nothing more than another Bush.

Israel has no intention of invading Iran. Precision military strikes maybe to wipe out nuke capabilities (see Iraq, Syria), but not an invasion on the scale of Iraq in 03. Neither Israel or the US has the capacity to do that.

# 9 Sally,

Amen! What Israel wants, Israel gets, we are going to war with Iran and our economy is going worse in the toilet.

"Are you nuts? Noone is invading Iran."

Israel seems to think it is.

Don't forget, Bin Laden has won the war on the dollar, he has brought down our economy, he said Oil would be $144 a barrel and it is!

Brian,

Not 3 days ago you were calling Obama on flipflopping about the war! That he was going to the Rigth.

Now today you say he and John McCain have VERY different stances.

Brian, Brian, Brian, Please for the love of journalism why not try and be a little more objective.

There are some of us that actually want out of Iraq NOW! Not 16 months. Obama nor McCain hold this stance, some in congress do like Bill Richardson.

It's so cute when the Iraqis act like it's their country (and their oil) ... Maliki better keep his mouth shut or Cheney will fly over there and shoot him in the face.

or is it Israel that wants the US to go to Iran? Either way, that is where we are headed.

David,

Bush wants to go to war with Iran, they are just itching for a reason.

Obama's timetable is 16 months for troop withdraw. If Iraq kicks us out, how will that affect our leaving? Will it start another war?

Are you nuts? Noone is invading Iran.

This is a good one. I'm worried about us going to war with Iran though before the thing in the White House leaves in January. How many days left?

What does this mean for our "occupation?"