The latest: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080825/ap_ ... QyTRms0NUE



Apparently one of the major sticking points is the Bush-McCain desire to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely.

And no word yet on whether or not Obama ever said he would withdraw all troops withing a month.

I can't say with 100% certainty, but I'm pretty sure I was wrong on this one. Obama's made himself look stupid on the issue, and he's waffled on his timetable over and over, but he never said he wanted the troops out in a month as I had believed. He did say all of the following though:





Back in January of 2007, he said he wanted the troops out "As soon as possible." He later went on to lay a more specific timetable, which wanted the troops all home by this past April of 2008. Now I believe he wants them all out in 16 months? Something like that.

I'll be the first one to say Bush and Co. fucked up miserably after the initial invasion. It was a giant success, it was too easy, and they fell asleep at the wheel. They were woefully unprepared, had no plan, and foolishly expected peace, support and harmony. Sheer dementia, and it does show incompetence. That said, thank GOD they realized that they had created a mess, and realized that they had to fix it for the stability of the region going forward. The surge, the same surge Obama was so against and McCain screaming for, helped lower the violence, decrease the fatalities, and stabilize the country.

There are still a ton of problems in Iraq, many caused by the current administration's lack of foresight. But I am thrilled that we are coming to a mutual agreement with Iraq, an agreement that empowers them to take control over their own destiny. Even if that agreement kicks us out of the country entirely (it won't, we will still have an embassy with 5-15k in troops), it's the right way to do things, and I'm extremely thankful that this administration is up to the task of brokering an ending to the mess they created.

Either way, I was wrong on the month timetable. Not sure where I got that in my head, but I really thought he had said it at one point!

So all of that nonsense of you attacking me for not telling the truth (even though I did), and your claim about Obama was completely false.

Kudos for admitting it though.

Well, I wasn't calling you a liar for anything related to Obama asking for the troops to be out in a month.

Our argument was around you purposefully misusing McCain's quote to make it seem as though he wanted to continue our occupation of Iraq indefinitely. Did you ever use those words exactly? Nope, but you sure insinuated it, that's what I got out of your comments, and you've done it before in past threads. If I mis-understood your intention with McCain's quote, then I'm wrong again, but I don't think I did.

Again, it all comes down to the fact that having a presence in a country forever is nothing of any importance, we do it in over 70% of the countries in the world. The question is what TYPE of presence, and that's what I felt you were purposefully, and knowingly misleading about. I find that kind of deception to be blatant lying.

Yeah, I should have just made it up out of whole cloth, like you did.



While we could argue over just how asinine it is that we have troops in 135 countries in the world (and that you're okay with that), the BIG DIFFERENCE that you don't seem to grasp is that, unlike Iraq, those countries don't seem to mind that we're there.

If this were no big deal to the Iraqis, then it wouldn't be a sticking point in the negotiations, they wouldn't be insisting that we remove ALL troops from Iraqi soil. So clearly there is a difference to THEM. And the idea that Bush-McCain want to keep thousands of troops there indefinitely is important to THEM. They don't give a crap that you're okay with us having a permanent military presence in 135 countries. In fact, that makes us look worse to a people that see us as meddling imperialists, not better.

So what I said was true. What you said was not only false, you completely made it up. And I'm the liar?

I am pretty sure US will have a quite huge presence in Iraq for a long time.....Not necessarely because they want but everytime there is something going wrong in Iraq the Iraqis will scream
"You all brought that to us now help".
So when in 2016 still more than 20000-40000 troops are in Iraq...you all can say "Thank you Mr. Bush."

Well, you are partly correct.

If the Iraquies truely want us out of their country, including the lack of an embassy, then in the end it is their country and we should leave.

The issue though, as I understand it, isn't so much held up over our troops leaving as it is the jurisdiction they have. Right now, our troops can go off, rape, kill or maim an Iraquie citizen, and Iraq has no say over their punishment.

They aren't happy with that, and rightfully so.

It will get worked out, and we will have an embassy there for years, based on a MUTUAL agreement, just as we do everywhere else.

As you understand it?

"There can be no treaty or agreement except on the basis of Iraq's full sovereignty," al-Maliki told a gathering of Shiite tribal sheiks. He said an accord must be based on the principle that "no foreign soldier remains in Iraq after a specific deadline, not an open time frame."

How difficult is this to understand?



You've now downshifted your claim from "thousands of troops will be in Iraq just like we have in 135 countries" to "we'll have an embassy." Now that's some goal-post moving of herculean proportions.

Does the U.S. even need bases in Iraq for tactical reasons? There's always Kuwait.

That embassy would house 5 to 15k in troops, as I've said before.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_cont ... ror_update

interesting little article

With the end at long last in sight, I think that's a fair assessment (although calling it the "War on Terror" is a little irritating - has anyone yet defined what "winning" is for such a war?). I think it's all the more reason to declare victory ASAP and just get the hell out of there.

They give no credit to Bush, obviously. My faith in the American people remains in tact.