On Demand
30 Issues: Iraq
Andrés Martinez, director of the Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program at the New America Foundation and writes the blog Stumped at the Washington Post, and Max Boot, the Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick senior fellow for National Security Studies at The Council on Foreign Relations and the author of War Made New: Technology, Warfare, and the Course of History: 1500 to Today (Gotham, 2006), discuss the Iraq War and how the two candidates’ views differ from each other and from those of the current administration.
Then
Eric Hilleman, deputy director of the Legislative Affairs Office for the Veterans of Foreign
Wars (VFW),
and Paul Rieckhoff, founder and executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan
Veterans of America, talks about the candidates' records on veterans issues and what's most important going forward.
- About the Brian Lehrer Show »
- Staff Bios »
- Contact Us »
- Tapes and Transcripts »
- Latest Episode »
- Show Archive »
Features & Series
Podcast
Stay up to date.
Subscribe to the Podcast
YOU PRODUCE The Brian Lehrer Show
Be a listener-producer with facts, questions and people you'd like to hear on the air.
More
The Brian Lehrer Show Scrapbook
Visit the scrapbook for daily photos and miscellany from The Brian Lehrer Show.
More
Shop at Amazon!
The Brian Lehrer Show picks
Start your Amazon shopping on WNYC.org and a portion of your total purchase goes to WNYC.
More
Comments
Refresh
Weren't term limits established for a reason like what regulation was to industries back in the day?
When we deregulated industries now look where we are.
Term limits were set up for a reason.
A week ago, former secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neil said that the bailout should not BUY the mortgage-backed securities in trouble but should back them with the full faith and credit of the US government, which would make them instantly liquid, just like cash, and they could trade, just like cash, and the credit market crunch would immediately lessen considerably.
We already do this with Ginnie Maes (for those who don't know what GNMA is: government national mortgage association). Why is no one talking about this?
Thanks.
Please ask Max Boot what McCain means by "victory" in Iraq.
is the surge working?
i read recently that it was not the surge, but ethnic cleansing that has diminished violence in iraq. why is the surge given all the credit?
Could someone PLEASE tell me what the Surge worked to do?
Peterus said, "The Surge met it's military goals". That's all. Violence is down in Baghdad but it's up in Afghanistan. Was that what the surge worked to do.
So many people are saying it worked but not defining what it worked to do.
PLEASE ask this question, Brian.
Why is no one mentioning that according to a multitude of various sources on the ground, a large part of the reason the surge is succeeding is because we're paying many "insurgent" Iraquis not to attack. What would happen if we suddenly pulled those payments, or when we eventually do?
what's with the fetsih for right wing lunatics like Max Boot lately?
"the surge" encompassed far more than just the increase in troops, per Patreus. it succeeded because of other things including the sunni awekening and the US' chnaged relations with sunnis. so let's not conflate the entire improved situation just being about the increase in troop levels. and let's stop talking about VICTORY- Patreus doesn't even talk about that.
what is Mccain's position? why are we just talking about Obama's positions today? the big error in judgement was mccain's in supporting the war in the first place.
Wasn't the point of the troop increase to allow conditions to stabilize so that there could be politcal progress among the various Iraqi factions, not just quelling violence?
How's that going?
Why does the Obama campaign continue to accept the framing of the "surge" issue? They ought to reject the premise that this was a surge at all. The "surge" was nothing more than sending the number of troops that should have been sent in the first place. The analogy that made this clear to me was if a baseball team sent 7 players out on the field, we wouldn't praise the manager as clever for sending out two more players as a surge to try to win the game.
Brian - please challenge your guests with the view that the reduction in violence had little to do with the surge but happened: a) because we were paying the Iraqis not to shoot at us, and b) ethnic cleansing has reduced the violence (per sattelite data) - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/19/satellite-shows-ethnic-cl_n_127854.html
Here we go again.... Can't Brian EVER get this right?
How can you put on a brazen McCain apologist/adviser with a largely non-partisan analyst who has no stake in either defending or promoting Obama and won't (unlike Max Boot) be associated with any 2009 administration?
Max Boot sounds like he is reading from a script. The Iraq War has been a disaster. Obama is clearly the most reasonable of the two candidates. All McCain says is "victory with honor." What kind of "honor" does this nation deserve after all of the unnecessary carnage on both sides? I am so tired of hearing guests like Max Boot, spewing nothing but Bush-approved rhetoric. It is clear that McCain favors the gun over diplomacy, not a position far from the Bush Administration.
The BBC reported this morning that the Shia government would be paying the bill for Sunni awaking group. No longer will the US army carry that burden. Leaders of the awakening groups are saying that their men are ready to join the insurgency because the men fear that they will be killed by the Shia government.
Now tell more about the surge.
With all the talk about the "Surge" succeeding, isn't it possible or even likely that even the Iraqi extremists simply have exhausted themselves (and killed off their most warlike brethren) and reached a tipping point where enough have become fed up with the chaos to pull back at a time that coincidentally overlaps with the troop buildup?
Why can't McCain learn that war just leads to more war?
That's learning from history.
Why can't he actually try to solve a problem rather then create more?
I love when neo-cons get all phony-offended. "How dare you imply we love taking the country to war?!"
"Oh, btw, we're going to war again."
We don't have permanent bases anywhere in the world? Wow. What a gigantic lie. Please don't let him get away with that; that's just ridiculous.
I agree with Jesse. The surge would never have worked without (i) the truce with the shia militia of Muqtada al-Sadr (where negotiation worked), (ii) sunni leadership's cooperation against al-Queda (where diplomacy worked), and (iii) the ethnic cleansing that has almost completely separated the shia from the sunni.
In fact, these factors would probably have reduced the violence even without the surge.
Also - Boot is lying when he says the Iraqis want us to stay - they want us gone: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/08/25/africa/ME-Iraq-US-Pact.php
Is Guantanamo not a permanent base? I think that Cuba would like us to leave
Hey Max,
Maliki demands firm withdrawal date!
Based on your statement on the Philippines how will you change your opinion?
so there is no such thing as "permanent bases" but how about the symbolism of the largest American Embassy in the world - as big as the Vatican?
The Max's condescending manner is the reason why the Republicans will lose this election. They have no respect for the other opinion. Talk about Obama should have studies? He's an extremely smart and educated man - more than McCain.
Hey Max,
Who are you trying to appeal to?
this guy just said that our military bases are in countries that want us there and are free to ask us to leave. what about guantanamo bay? i know koreans who wish we would leave. many of them! japan's success had nothing to do with the u.s. military. it had to do with a good work ethic and a balanced economy that is fedearl subsidized, that started as early as th 1920's. once again a republican does not know what he is talking about.
The tone of the McCain guy is ridiculous. He calls Brian's descriptive word "cavalier" as obscene and offensive. I'm so sick of these repugnant speakers attacking out of a defensive posture while an open minded guy like Brian doesn't challenge it. Stop getting childish right-wing, partisan guests on the show. Or if you do get them, have someone that can take them down a peg.
"Good on Foreign Policy" in this country seems to only be defined by a leaders willingness to drop bombs.
When will, McCain "learn from history".
JFK solved the Cuban Missile Crisis with a phone call to Kruschev. Why? Because military action in the region failed at the Bay of Pigs.
Anyone who has ever tried to get out of the house with a bunch of small kids knows you need a target time. My husband and I routinely say, okay, we're going to get out of here and go to the blah blah by 10. Uusually we don't leave until noon, but if we didn't have a timetable we'd never get out.
There's nothing impermanent about the US bases in Wiesbaden, Germany. It's not like we've had a couple tents up there for sixty years. Nor in any of the other (70?) countries we're currently in. "They aren't permanent, because those governments aren't willing to try and force our gigantic army out of their countries." What a bully.
This guy Max is a puppet.
Republicans talk as if the war is over because of the surge. It's not and they know it. They're just pretending it is until November 5th.
To claim that someone's patriotism is beyond question is un-American. This is the essential message of the pro-McCain shill currently speaking. McCain's voting record does not show a concern for the lives of soldiers.
@jim - my girlfriend is Okinawan, and says most of the island wants the bases gone.
There was an article in The New York Times on Monday, September 15,2008"Sunni Imam and Proponent of Reconciliation is Killed by Bomb at Bagdad Home". The article which talks about the possible unraveling of the Sunni awakening has been talked about by a number of people.
The next to last paragraph in the article,however, has not been mentioned and I believe it to be the most important part of the article. That paragraph is the following:
"Iraq's Parliament,meanwhile, embroiled itself in the recent visit of a lawmaker to Israel to attend a conference on terrorism. Parliament voted to strip the lawmaker,Mithal al-Alousi, in independent Sunni Arab, of his immunity and recommended that he be proscecuted for dealing with the enemy".
If the Shiite-led government is ready to prosecute a Sunni Lawmaker for dealing with the enemy,and, more to the point, if the Iraqi government considers Israel to be the enemy of Iraq, then how many troops will we need to surge and how many years will we have to stay in Iraq if we are going to win this war?
And Brian ... it's neither conservative nor liberal to point out to a guest that they've misstated facts.
Obama want Iraq to be able to take care of itself.
McCain wants to use it.
Max you are a fool. Winning. What a tool. There is now win in war.
could somebody please define or deconstruct what we mean by "the surge" ???
are we talking about the awakening? the increase in troops around the green zone? both? something more?
Please give Max Boot the boot. He is ridiculous!
@KC - There's nothing permanent about the US bases - you've run into a clever Republican rhetoric.
There's nothing permanent about our public school system either. The US people could "ask" to have it removed just as Iraqis could just "ask" the US to leave.
Nothing is permanent. The sun will supernova in a few billion years.
Brian, can't you find a Republican pundit who can argue rationally?
a clearly mccain partisan debating a much more neutral pundit. doesnt make for good listening brian.
also, forget the minutia about surge this, increase troops, violence, blah, blah, blah. THINK MACRO! the iraq war is, and will be remembered as, a collosal distraction when America needed to invest in itself (infastructure, education etc), revamp it's military for new threats, and quietly shape the world of the 21st century. mccain is obsessed with the last wars not the future wars.
Some questions I'd pose based on the Peter Galbraith article in the New York Review of Books:
- Why does McCain focus so much on Iraq as a base for Al Qaeda, when it took the Sunni Awakening not too much time to drastically reduce AQI's capabilities? How is AQI such a formidable foe, seeing as it has gone down pretty easy?
- We view the Awakening as a good thing. The Shia government views it as a 100,000-man army that could take over the country. How do we expect these two groups to reconcile in the long term?
- What are the guests' opinions on what needs to happen to the Kurdish zone?
- How many of the laws that were supposed to be passed as the political side of the surge have been passed?
- Why is discussion of the surge only military, when the military people all say, "there is no military solution in Iraq"? What happened to the diplomatic/political surge?
Obama is not trying to "have it both ways" by having a position on Iraq that is not written in stone. He is merely responding sensibly to a constantly changing (even chaotic) situation. But then, Republicans, conservatives and their ilk are often befuddled by complicated issues that require nuanced thought and agile response. To them, a war has to have two sides (and only two sides) and ends with a winner and a loser. The scenario in Iraq is miles away from that simplistic good guys vs. bad guys paradigm.
General Petraeus never uses the word "victory" either.
this republican just said that obama never used the word victory but the fourth or fifth word in the quote was the word vicotry! this guy does not know what he is talking about! how can we give men like this credence? why do we let these people talk? he does not know what he is saying! and again, the success of germany, japan, korea and others had nothing NOTHING to do with the u.s. military. it wsa the people of these countries that got their countries going!
“South Korea, Germany and Japan”…
Iraq…
Apples and oranges. A remarkably unsophisticated comparison.
SOS
McCain supporter attacks Obama using quotes from any point in time while Obama supporter explains Obama's positions!
I thought the idea of the piece was to explain their positions.
Blah, Blah, Blah
This is classic GOP bull.
Ask Max a question and he doesn't answer. He turns it into an attack.
He has no answers.
Circle talk.
Kevin is correct, this segment is a disaster because the McCain supporter is a flagrant distorter yet the Obama supporter is wayyyyy too subdued.
Mr. Boot and his like-minded people live in an American fantasy world. People in the Islamic world see America’s military adventure in Iraqi and the Middle East as neo-colonialism. Iraqis will forever fight American troops until every last one has left. Mr. Blunt needs to read Iraqi history in the last 2000 years
Obama wants Iraq to be able to take care of itself.
McCain wants to use it.
There is no winning this war.
It is so insulting and so demeaning and so denigrating of all veterans to apotheosize McCain. He has not shown judgement and his bomb bomb bomb Iran and other typical comments shows such a disconnect between the reality of conflict the gravity of leadership as to be the obscenity. He is the one who is out of touch.
BTW it was not the surge but the threat of leaving which drove the Iraqi Arabs who did it not the surge. The fighting stopped BEFORE it.
I am a 100% disabled vet and if i had his healthcare I would not be disabled. What he did as a pow has zero to do with now. He refuses to face facts.
FACT: the surge did not work. The ARAB Iraqis put down their weapons BEFORE the "surge" began as proven in fact scientifically by any number of means. Obama's instincts were correct.
McCain is the one who is obscenely wrong and is a serious threat to democratic reality at home and abroad and a bad bet for USA national security. Saying otherwise is an insult to me.
Get off it. Yes he suffered. I did too. Stop selling your medals MR. ex-pow McCain. It is shameful.
BBC's Owen Bennet-Jones has released his documentary on whetner or not al-Qaeda is winning and recently interviewed Reid Sawyer the Head of Counter-Terrorism at West Point who said that ultimately, miliary action alone will not win the war on terror or al-Qaeda. Seems to me that Obama is more in tune and on track with the military leaders of the country who themselves feel that ultimate 'victory' will be achieved with a holistic approach that yes may include military action but not at the exclusion of other diplomatic tactics.
Yes Max, but they are winning in Afghanistan!
i'm turning the radio off. i cannot listen to the ignorance of this republican anymore.
The comparisons that are being made to success in German and Japan ridiculous. These were modern industrialized societies with homogeneous populations. Iraq's commody-based economy bears no resemblance. Neither does its radically fragmented society. For supporters of the war to believe these comparisons are relevant displays either their complete ignorance of history, or a willful disinegnuousness. Either way it's complete nonsense.
One more thought...the Iraq war is what it is and no matter how difficult it is to extract our soldiers are from the mess, that will happen. The most important decisions were made five years ago.
The far more important issue is which candidate can be trusted not to initiate (like Bush) or fall for (like LBJ) false intelligence and start another war that doesn't actually advance US interests?
Brian,
It's shocking how untruthful or uninformed one of your guests, Max Boot, is about the surge and the Iraq War overall.
First of all, it's questionable at best that the surge is responsible for the drop in violence. Here is a quote from General Barry McCaffrey from a story that actually was broadcast on NPR:
""McCaffrey and other former officers say that a surge of 30,000 additional troops into a country of 30 million could never have enough of an impact alone to turn things around.
"The least important aspect of the so-called change in strategy was the surge," McCaffrey says."
from: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17899543
The Anbar Sunni Awakening and completed ethnic cleansing in Baghdad are a LOT more responsible for the drop in violence.
Further on a timeline for withrawal, which Barack Obama has been in favor of for a while, THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES want us to leave. Poll after poll there reveals that the vast majority of them want us to leave, and even believe that attacks on US forces are legitimate.
What's more, earlier this summer, the Bush administration and John McCain were totally embarrassed when Nuri Al-Maliki himself said that there should be a timeline for US troop withdrawal.
Time and again, Barack Obama has been ahead of the curve on Iraq, while the Bush administration and its acolytes have come lately to his conclusions.
Remember - McCain is the man who tried to convince it is safe to walk through Iraq, saying there "are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today", after he toured Iraq, where he was escorted by many troops and he wore a bullet proof vest.
Remember, McCain is the man who is fine with Bush saying "Bring it on".
Mr. Boot has a mantra: the surge, the surge, the surge. We are winning and we are going to win. Win what? His analysis is simplistic and basically political talking points, and frankly from this listners point of view, a complete waste of time.
Why aren't you talking about the gains achieved from the Awakening (paying off about 100,000 Sunni sectarians) vs. what can truly be attributed to the "Surge"? -- the essence of Obama's criticism of reliance on the Surge/increased troop strength to account for the decrease in violence in Iraq.
I hate this garbage about WIN or Victory in this war.
When you Win, you want to celebrate. I don't think that anyone should celebrate this war. For the United States it wasn't like WWII when we came to the aid of our Allies, and responded to actions against the US in Pearl Harbor. (The ending of that war was horrible, but thought then a necessity) This war was a greedy bloodthirsty oil investor trying to save his friends' businesses. Let's never forget oil tankers named after Condi Rice.
This war was never a response to 9/11, it was and will always be an embarrassment. And hopefully it will go down as a failure in all aspects, and a testament to the President(s) (lets not for get GHWB) who brought it on. (War Crime, impeach)
Read up on Max Boot :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Boot
Just about every time Max Boot mentions the opposition to the war, he sounds as if Obama was the reason for this opposition. He's nothing more than an apologist for the right wing. Phooey.
They dont want bail out homeowners in America but they are so worried about their moral responsibility to Iraqis. Republicans hate Americans. They might love America but they hate Americans.
the whole world knows we lost years ago. No matter what we "win" now, we lost it: look at our finacial suystem. We have lost it. Look at the Arussian invasion of georgia. We have lost it. look at the Iranian invasion of Lebabnon and its takeover by Hezbillah. We lost it. You cannot lipstick this pig
[[Please remember to remain civil in your comments. No name calling, for one. Thanks!
-BL Show-]]
That smarmy, obscene statement by McCain made me sick. Literally. I wanted to throw up when he said: I know the veterans : he is one sick cookie and his record is 100% anti-vet. I am a 100% disabled vet. I know.
McCain is the last one to help a vet and he wants to take away what we have left.
If I had his medical care I would not be disabled. He makes Uriah Heap look sincere.
The Debate on Iraq
I am a US Marine who severed both tour in Japan & in Iraq on Numerous occasions.
1st on the issue of Winning or loosing - We should not try to correct the failures of the Vietnam War in Iraq. The only responsible course is to treat each war on its own strategic merit as it affects our national interest.
2nd - The comparison of Iraq and Germany, Japan and South Korea as a candidate for permanent bases is an erroneous judgment similar to the one that placed us there in the first place. Why unlike these other countries Iraq’s religious heritage view us whether we like if our not as invading infidel whom should not be present on there soil. Hence going forward we do more harm that good in the creation of new radical youth who because of there disaffected situation is far more dangerous to us long term than any benefits of a long term presences.
I doubt that anyone really buys Max Boot's talking points and empty concern-trolling; it irritates me that one side of the conversation has a list of phrases to repeat (Boot) and the other (Martinez) actually offers thoughts, but at least it's obvious to everyone listening. I also agree with Martinez that "winning" in Iraq has been treated almost like a sporting event (the "USA USA" chants don't help).
I think we are not doing enough for our veterans to provide them with mental health services and financial support.
I also think the Phelps family with that Westboro Baptist church are disrespectful to the soldiers whom died in Iraq protesting at their funerals. They need to be stopped.
McCain has missed more votes than a guy in a coma.
That says it all.
vets were just cannon fodder to bush. poor people who didn't make it to college. another example of GOP "morals," looking down on working people.
Why does McCain think he deserves the right not to be questioned about his support of Vets?
Because he says so?
Come on.
Just because you say your care means nothing. You need to show you care.
I am offended by the McCain supporters use of the tern 'SABOTAGE'. By dictionary definition:
1. any underhand interference with production, work, etc., in a plant, factory, etc., as by enemy agents during wartime or by employees during a trade dispute.
2. any undermining of a cause.
–verb (used with object) 3. to injure or attack by sabotage.
McCain has accused Obama of being unpatriotic. This guy was not saying that Obama's policies will not work. He was saying Obama wants to sabotage the Iraqi war. Is that what he meant or is he just trying to sabotage civil debate and obscure the issue.
Brian, you really short changed these guys on time.
How can the Republican party maintain the perception that they are the party that is strong on defense, foreign policy and support for veterans after the past 8 years? Why is the democratic party so incapable of reshaping the duologue on these issues?
We have been fighting a war that has damaged our military for no advantage to our country. Our Veterans have been mistreated time and time again.
Our military has done everything asked of it and more and it is time the civilian leadership stand accountable for their record.
Why can't the democrats articulate that a condemnation of the civilian leadership is not a judgment against the troops. How about some concrete support not flag lapel pins and empty words.
Yeah, right McCain, you have the highest ratings from all the veterans' groups, like these for example:
Disabled American Veterans: McCain - 20 % rating
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America: McCain - D grade
cite: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=53270&type=category&category=66&go.x=15&go.y=10
This guy lies like I breathe.
We owe a special debt to those who defend our country from those who could and would do us harm. No question.
But, to to be frank, how that applies to those who served in Iraq is not so clear. This was not a defensive war. Iraq was not cooperating with those who would do us harm, and did not have the capacity to do us harm itself.
The danger to our soldiers in Iraq came from the fact that we invited them -- who would not otherwise be able to attack the United States -- to attack us there. Our president literally dared them to "bring it on," but more importantly, the theory was that "we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here." Of course, that fact that it is easier for them to fight there made the threat greater, perhaps even created a danger that would not have existed otherwise.
Do we owe a special debt to those who service had harmed our nation's reputation and made the world less safe for Americans -- even though it usually was through no fault of their own?
I don't know the answer to that question. And I don't foresee anyone honestly discussing it. But I really wish that knee jerk support of veterans was not done to demonstrate patriotism or toughness.
The fact that McCain has missed ANY votes on Vets related issues is shameful. As a senator i guess he has the right to choose what is important to him. But as a Vet himself, and someone who has suffered so much (and will not let us forget it, and keeps using it as a tool in this campaign for people to feel sorry for him and vote him)I think that the fact that he has not made Vets issues his main issue in his career as a senator of 26 years makes me think that this is not his priority even though he claims to care .
Alex,
The point you bring up about:
"Our president literally dared them to "bring it on," but more importantly, the theory was that "we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here.""
is even more offensive when you consider that the Iraqis that George Bush and John McCain claim to care so much about were used as cannon fodder in this absurd *flypaper* experiment. Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.
McCain and Bush care a lot about disabled American Veterans without proper care - they want to produce as many of them as they can.
Possibly the worst show you have ever done:
Truly awful pairing of Max Boot (for the war based on all the lies before it began and official McCain talking points spokesperson) vs. Journalist/moderate think tanker who was also wrong about the war before hand and is NOT an Obam campaign spokesperson.
Either should have actual official Obama spokesperson, or if cannot get that, then somebody from progressive/liberal side who was actually against the war for the right reasons ahead of time, and hence also gets why the "surge is working" is phony meme.
See for example:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2008/09/30/surge/
Why people who got it all wrong before the war are still considered pundits for anything is beyond belief. Shame on you and your bookers.
Would Max Boot ever take a breath?
It was continuous knocks on Obama while pretending to take the high road.
I agree it was a bad paring an aparatcheck versus a journalist.
Dear Mr. Lehrer,
It is amazing how poor your program on Iraq was today: neither you, nor your guests could see the forest from the trees; your guests regurgitated the same old campaign slogans, and you tried to find the difference between the candidates by repeating every minute utterance each candidate made. And I thought that you have a broader perspective!!! You perpetuated the total misunderstanding of this war, and with your guests got trapped into the false framing of this war as anything that had to do with patriotism.
What "success" could be in Iraq? killing another 100,000 Iraquis?
And you did not even have time for callers to put that subject on the right tracks.
As you continue your "issues" can you please try to have better, nore rational guests who can inform your audience and answer their comments. Please, trust that your listeners, me among them, are far more intelligent that the aparatchiks of each campaign.
With regard to Iraq, there have been so many things that have gone wrong over the past 8 years that one should be able to acknowledge recent limited success without squishy.
The Surge? Why can't the Obama campaign somehow frame the discussion is such a way that a broader range of factors are taken into consideration.
1) Rumsfeld was fired! What in God's name took Bush so long! At least Gates is competent.
2) Petreus took over. He may not be perfect, but the Petraus, Crocker, Gates team along with the removal of Rumsfeld and de-fanging of Cheney allowed strategies like the funding of "Awakening Councils" to take place. And don't kid yourself..these guys are talking to Iran, even if only through proxies.
3) The dems won in 06 on an anti-war platform election. I think the election sent a pretty clear message to the Iraq government there was a limit to the patience of US citizens and Iraq government based progress on security and politics better start before the 2008 election. I call that a "timetable"...given directly to the Iraq government by the US voter.
Vote Obama.
Leave a Comment
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Back to EpisodeEmail addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. WNYC reserves the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the WNYC.org Comment Guidelines before posting.