What would you expect from a coward and traitor like Hanoi John Kerry? He looks at McCain, a hero, and see's himself as important as a pimple on a knat's butt.

Whether we leave tomorrow or stay a hundred years in the end Maliki and Co. will be more allied with Iran than the USA, just as they've always been.

If you want a government independent of Iran Sadr is your best bet. Even though he hates Americans he has sad he'd be happy to hire our oil field service firms to pump Iraqi oil.

And what's with the desperation to have bases in Iraq? We already have bases in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and elsewhere. Why keep pushing for bases in Iraq when it gives Bin Laden talking points in his recruiting videos?

John McCain is presumably learning a hard lesson

Maverick? Learn a lesson? Doubtful.

[[If you want a government independent of Iran Sadr is your best bet]]

Bwahahahahahahah.

We need bases in Iraq to carry out the operations that have been part of the amazing sucess of the surge. Murthas bombing runs flown from Okinawa just wouldnt have worked.

I doubt that Maliki and Co are good buds with Iran given that Iran is blowing up Iraqis.

You may have missed the mass anti-Iran demonstrations that followed ahmadinajads last visit to Iraq.

markg8, before you leave a comment and let the whole world know how ignorant of fact you are, you should (1) get your facts straight, and (2) inform yourself about the subject you opine about.

Sadr has been living in Iran. He is an Iranian puppet. His own followers are abandoning him.

Take a look at a map. To leave Iraq without securing permanent bases there would be a giant strategical failure.

Iran may wish to, even expect to dominate Iraq after we leave, but to think that the Iraqis want them to is ludicrous. There is little love lost between Iraq and Iran or have you forgotten the bloody, costly 8 year war they fought not so many years ago?

Iraq was always a more sophisticated, more secular society and as their nationalism grows and they are becoming more used to being out from under the iron-fisted dictatorship of Saddam, they are liking their freedom. They aren't going to trade Saddam for the Iranian mullahs, despite how much you moonbats might like them to.

Perhaps you missed the remarks by the Anbar Sheik this week during his visit to Washington.

"No, but that's not too important. What's important is the casualties in Iraq."

Translation:

"We have unlimited bodies to throw in Iraqi meatgrinder, but we need to keep the casualties low so we can stay there for one hundred years."

John McBush

I think you meant McCain, as that's his name. I fixed it for you.
----

CY, I noticed you used the word Copperhead.

Hammer. Nail. Copperhead.

Almost anytime I hear Democrats speak of the military, it's as wards of the state, another interest group to be bought off by and cared for with other people's money.

Almost anytime I hear Democrats speak of war, it's as if the goal of war is merely to end it as quickly as possible. I've heard plenty of Democrats propose plans for Iraq -- Okinawa, anyone? -- but I haven't heard one yet speak of a plan for victory. War to Democrats is something to be ended, not something to be won.

"No, but that's not too important. What's important is the casualties in Iraq."

Accurate translation: Since we are winning the war and US casualties are way down theres no reason not to stay in Iraq and finish crushing al-Qaida and the Iranians trying to expand their influence. It would be a lot like the US troops still in Korea, Germany and Clintoons quagmire in Kosovo.

Ahh yes, the old Iraq "will be more allied with Iran than the USA, just as they've always been." stupidity shows it's ignorance again.

Saddam's last words of warning to his "People" was not fight the Americans, or drive out the infidel. . . it was Beware of the Persians. Because the Iraqis (mostly Arabs) and the Iranians (mostly Persians) have been so friendly with each other throughout history, they have basically been at war with each other from time immemorial.

Sara,

Sadr has been living in Iran.

Sez who? The same people who told us Iraq had WMD?

He is an Iranian puppet.

Your gullibility is really starting to show. You need to read more than DOD and Bush Administration press releases.

His own followers are abandoning him.

He has a movement and as such they don't always take orders from him. Especially when it's not in their financial or regional benefit to do so. But again if you're taking fools like Condi Rice or criminals like Dick Cheney at face value that's a problem.

Take a look at a map. To leave Iraq without securing permanent bases there would be a giant strategical failure.

I suppose every war supporter has to strive for a pony of some kind. Now permanent bases are the justification for the war and continued occupation? You look at a map. We've got bases all over the middle east. We don't need bases in Iraq.
They're not going to let our oil companies pay them 15% for their oil anymore than the Saudis do.

The only failure will be the political one for the Republican party which in case you haven't noticed
lost that debate long ago. The American people are going to exact the price for that failure and all the lies and corruption that go along with it in November. The harder you try to figure out some face saving way to sell this mess as salvageable the more Republicans we'll turn out of office.

Iran may wish to, even expect to dominate Iraq after we leave, but to think that the Iraqis want them to is ludicrous.

I agree. If Maliki cozies up too much to the Iranians Iraqis will throw him out of office and elect Sadr. If Bush was smart he'd offer to let the Iranians and Syrians take over the briar patch
and let them get their soldiers blown up for a change. See how they like it. I doubt they'd take him up on the offer because they're not that stupid.

There is little love lost between Iraq and Iran or have you forgotten the bloody, costly 8 year war they fought not so many years ago?

Why yes, I remember that war, it ended 20 years ago. I also remember we fought a war against Germany that ended in 1945, but I guess in your alternative universe Volkswagon utterly failed trying to sell Beetles here in the 1950s and 1960s because US citizens still hated Germans.

Seriously though visits to the holy shrines of Najaf and Karbala for the Shiite high holy days by busloads of Iranians are the second biggest business in Iraq since the invasion. Granted that's not saying much since there's still about a 60% unemployment rate in Iraq but Iranians are thrilled to see the holy sites and welcomed by their Shiite brethren who sell them souvenirs and house and feed them. From what I read it's like Mardi Gras without the booze and debauchery.

Iraq was always a more sophisticated, more secular society

You can thank Saddam Hussein for that. For all his many faults he believed in lots of education funding for both men and women and didn't have much use for religion. Like his role model Stalin.

and as their nationalism grows and they are becoming more used to being out from under the iron-fisted dictatorship of Saddam, they are liking their freedom.

So let's give it to them. They're itching to run their own country and pump their oil.

They aren't going to trade Saddam for the Iranian mullahs, despite how much you moonbats might like them to.

You think anyone is going to try and invade and occupy Iraq after we leave? You'd have to be dumber than Bush to try it.

Just what we need, more idiocy from Waffles Kerry.

Speaking of waffles here's McCain on Charlie Rose Nov. 27, 2007:

ROSE: Do you think that this — Korea, South Korea is an analogy of where Iraq might be, not in terms of their economic success but in terms of an American presence over the next, say, 20, 25 years, that we will have a significant amount of troops there?

MCCAIN: I don’t think so.

ROSE: Even if there are no casualties?

MCCAIN: No. But I can see an American presence for a while. But eventually I think because of the nature of the society in Iraq and the religious aspects of it that America eventually withdraws.

You can listen to the whole clip here:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/28/mccain-korea-withdrawal/

Interestingly enough he goes on to say the key to it is getting US troops off the streets of Baghdad
and Kirkut (sic) and other Iraqi cities which was Casey's "hide on our bases" strategy to keep US casualties low for the 2006 US elections before the surge.

Cy are you just going to let the claims posted here go unchallenged?

[[Sadr has been living in Iran.

Sez who? The same people who told us Iraq had WMD? ]]

Go git your tinfoil hats.

[[He is an Iranian puppet.

Your gullibility is really starting to show. You need to read more than DOD and Bush Administration press releases. ]]

Yes, be like the liberals, only read the NYT and only watch Olberdouch. Dont forget, "This war is lost" (hat tip Harry Reed).

[[We don't need bases in Iraq.]]

Yes we do. Missions from bases in Iraq made the surge such a success. Murtha style bombing runs from Okinawa would not have worked!

[[From what I read it's like Mardi Gras without the booze and debauchery.]]

The pilgramages to Najaf will certainly allow the oppressed Iranians to see life in democratic Iraq, but I think a huggy kissy relationship between the theocracy of Iran and the people of Iraq is unlikly given the fact the Iranians keep blowing up Iraqis with IEDs.

[[You can thank Saddam Hussein for that. For all his many faults he believed in lots of education funding for both men and women and didn't have much use for religion. Like his role model Stalin.]]

Untill his started sucking up to Islamists to bolster his regim. I wonder if the women dying in his rape rooms conforted themselves with the thought that female literacy in Iraq was a little higher than Iran and Sudan?

[[They're itching to run their own country and pump their oil.]]

News flash. Their democratic government is running their own country and they are pumping their own oil at rates greater than pre-liberation.

[[You think anyone is going to try and invade and occupy Iraq after we leave?]]

No, becausee we have trained their military to be the best in the region and, unless some far left demtards get their way, will have bases in and a long term security agreement with Iraq.

Seriously there's no more proof that Sadr has been living in Iran than the big IEDs are made there. The US military was going to make a big splashy display of those mines awhile back for the press and then cancelled it because there was no evidence they were made in Iran.

Yes, be like the liberals, only read the NYT and only watch Olberdouch. Dont forget, "This war is lost" (hat tip Harry Reed).

I don't read much of the NY Times since Judith Miller got caught in cahoots with Chalabi. Like Olbermann though. BTW it's spelled Harry Reid.

[[We don't need bases in Iraq.]]

Yes we do. Missions from bases in Iraq made the surge such a success. Murtha style bombing runs from Okinawa would not have worked!

The surge worked? Tell it to the Iraqis. Where's the reconciliation?

George Bush January 2007:
A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.

America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units, and partner a coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division. We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped army, and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen the moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self-reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.

Sorry wrong again.

[[From what I read it's like Mardi Gras without the booze and debauchery.]]

The pilgramages to Najaf will certainly allow the oppressed Iranians to see life in democratic Iraq, but I think a huggy kissy relationship between the theocracy of Iran and the people of Iraq is unlikly given the fact the Iranians keep blowing up Iraqis with IEDs.

According to the US military in Iraq it's Sunni whackjobs mostly from Saudi Arabia who blow up Iraqis.

[[You can thank Saddam Hussein for that. For all his many faults he believed in lots of education funding for both men and women and didn't have much use for religion. Like his role model Stalin.]]

Untill his started sucking up to Islamists to bolster his regim. I wonder if the women dying in his rape rooms conforted themselves with the thought that female literacy in Iraq was a little higher than Iran and Sudan?

If you spellcheck that it might be worth responding to.

[[They're itching to run their own country and pump their oil.]]

News flash. Their democratic government is running their own country and they are pumping their own oil at rates greater than pre-liberation.

Once again tell it to the Iraqis. A third of Iraqi oil revenues are skimmed off by gangs or within the government. With the corrupt Saddam and Bush administrations as roll models and mentors that's to be expected.

[[You think anyone is going to try and invade and occupy Iraq after we leave?]]

No, becausee we have trained their military to be the best in the region and, unless some far left demtards get their way, will have bases in and a long term security agreement with Iraq.

Hahahahaha! The best in the region. You're funny.
Bush is trying to hold $20 billion in Iraqi government cash hostage in NY banks unless they sign Cheney's oil agreement and SOFA. And you wonder why they hate us. Here's news flash for you. A base treaty that the US Senate hasn't agreed to isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Now if you'll excuse me I think I'll leave you deluded folks who can't spell to your own devices.

markg8:
(Point 1)

Sara,
Sadr has been living in Iran.
Sez who? The same people who told us Iraq had WMD?

USAToday Says So

He is currently in Iran, having spent the past year there studying under a hard-line cleric who was an early proponent of the Iranian revolution in which Ayatollah Khomeini assumed dictatorial control, but al-Sadr said last month that religious leaders should not play politics.

That also takes care of your next claim (Point 2):

He is an Iranian puppet.

Your gullibility is really starting to show. You need to read more than DOD and Bush Administration press releases.

(Point 3)

His own followers are abandoning him.

He has a movement and as such they don't always take orders from him. Especially when it's not in their financial or regional benefit to do so. But again if you're taking fools like Condi Rice or criminals like Dick Cheney at face value that's a problem.

LATimes

"I had faith. I believed in something," Lami said of his days hoisting a gun for Sadr's Mahdi Army militia. "Now, I will never fight with them."

So much for that claim too. Read the entire article and you will see several ex-Sadr loyalists saying basically the same thing about “his movement”.

(Point 4)

Take a look at a map. To leave Iraq without securing permanent bases there would be a giant strategical failure.

I suppose every war supporter has to strive for a pony of some kind. Now permanent bases are the justification for the war and continued occupation? You look at a map. We've got bases all over the middle east. We don't need bases in Iraq. They're not going to let our oil companies pay them 15% for their oil anymore than the Saudis do.

This claim is simply a ridiculous statement on your part. Of course not securing ‘permanent bases” would be a STRATEGIC FAILURE. That’s basic military sense. Your strawman argument of paying them 15% for their oil is also ridiculous. Iraq is a member of OPEC as is Saudi Arabia. They are getting record pay for that oil. In other words, the US or “our oil companies” have never gotten that kind of a deal. Why don’t you bring out the old “No war for oil” tripe? Oh, I forgot…gas prices in the US (and all over the world) are at record levels except in the countries that subsidize them.

(Point 5)

The only failure will be the political one for the Republican party which in case you haven't noticed lost that debate long ago. The American people are going to exact the price for that failure and all the lies and corruption that go along with it in November. The harder you try to figure out some face saving way to sell this mess as salvageable the more Republicans we'll turn out of office.

I happen to agree with you that the Republicans will lose seats in Congress. However, I completely disagree with your reasoning. Corruption has been rampant on both sides of the aisle. Remember the name William Jefferson ?

I think I’ll stop there for now since destroying your first 4 arguments and agreeing on next 1 with my stated caveat is enough for one night.

markg8,

Don't throw spelling stones when you fail, albeit to a much lesser degree, in the same respect:

From the above post:

With the corrupt Saddam and Bush administrations as roll models and mentors that's to be expected.

"To leave Iraq without securing permanent bases there would be a giant strategical failure."

So these statements were lies then?

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, August 14, 2005:

"We do not seek permanent military bases in Iraq. Our goal is to help Iraq stand on its own feet, to be able to look after its own security, and to do what we can to help achieve that goal."

Condoleezza Rice, April 4, 2006

"I would think that people would tell you, `We're not seeking permanent bases really pretty much anywhere in the world these days.' We are, in fact, in the process of removing base structure from a lot of places," Rice replied.

I mean, obviously they were, I'd just like to hear you say it.

[[Seriously there's no more proof that Sadr has been living in Iran than the big IEDs are made there.]]

Seriously, HIS OFFICE admitted it.

[[Seriously there's no more proof that Sadr has been living in Iran than the big IEDs are made there.]]

Actually Harry Weed.

[[Like Olbermann though]]

Of course you do, hes a nut and lives in Libtard fantasy land.

[[The surge worked? Tell it to the Iraqis. Where's the reconciliation?]]

Err, only in the massive grass roots down turn in violence, cross sectarian reconcilliation, rejection of al-Qaida by he Sunnis, meeting of most diplomatic goals set by the US and the layoing down of arms by former insurgents. Seriously, you need to expand your news sources beyond Olberdouch.

[[According to the US military in Iraq it's Sunni whackjobs mostly from Saudi Arabia who blow up Iraqis.]]

According to the US military in Iraq its mostly Iranians who who fund the now hated JAM. Al-Qaida? Come on. They are getting destroyed by the Iraqis. They are so 2006 in terms of their role in Iraq.

[[If you spellcheck that it might be worth responding to.]]

Ahahahah. "Your spellings poopy", The last resort of someone getting spanked in an argument.

[[A third of Iraqi oil revenues are skimmed off by gangs or within the government.]]

Sweet. In the absence of any hope in winning this discussion you make stuff up. How MSNBC of you.

[[Hahahahaha! The best in the region. You're funny]]

Really. Well see who invades Iraq in the coming years,. I suspect no regional powers will for fear of the major arse kicking they will suffer.

[[Now if you'll excuse me I think I'll leave you deluded folks who can't spell to your own devices.]]

Dont leave mad, just leave

Rafar,

The statement in question is:

To leave Iraq without securing permanent bases there would be a giant strategical failure.

I added this:

Of course not securing 'permanent bases' would be a STRATEGIC FAILURE. That’s basic military sense.

In simple terms, "permanent bases" is actually quite relative. The US has had many "permanent bases" in most, if not all, of the countries we liberated/conquered/protected since WWII. For example (via Wiki): Tokyo Japan, Tachikawa Air Base (where two of my brothers were born) is now a Japanese Air Base: Tachikawa and Aviano Italy, Aviano Air Base (where I spent four years of my life) is now a NATO base: Aviano Air Base. Both bases are rather "permanent". However, neither remained US bases for the duration of that "permenancy". There is still a US presence in Aviano as noted in the .mil link above, however, I am not certain about Tachikawa. Tachikawa was initially a Japanese Army base.

Therefore, the diplomats may make the claim of "we do not seek" while the military is still going to build "permanent bases".

I'm absolutely certain both you and markg8 now understand the meaning of the phrases in question. I'm also certain you will continue to argue the moot point.

Nuanced enough for you Rafar?

Slight correction to the above - the links did not come from wiki since CY's engine doesn't allow wiki links :)...which I forgot. So, I put in better sources.

Harry Reid yesterday said that we need to pull our troops out of Iraq because we are in the middle of an intractable civil war. It's nice to see that he has not departed from his war is lost, civil war, narrative the way some other wishy washy dems have who have actually acknowledged the military and political progress of the past year.

You go Harry, keep those eyes closed. Next up, keeping gas prices high!

Lesson? Never allow your opponent's reaction to dictate who you will say. Second guessing yourself is much worse than your opponent dishonestly twisting your words out of context.

I wonder whether markg8 ever reads any current information on Iraq.

I wonder whether markg8 ever reads any current information on Iraq.

Nope. To do such would cause him intense mental anguish, therefore, he closes his mind to the facts.

I did attempt to make certain I only used recent information from 2008 sources for my links in the refutation comment.

I also tried to use links from such bastions of Conservatism and Republicans like USA Today and the LA Times. /sarc

Mark8ball:

You have every right to demonstrate the depth and breath of your knowledge; education; and experience. Now having demonstrated that we will need a microscope to measure it will you go back to your old job as Baghdad Bob.

There is no need to parade your ignorance as if it were a virtue.

FYI people - Markg8 is almost certainly the same troll who talked about beating a contributor to Protein Wisdom "until [his]... skull shatter[ed]". Said contributor had caught him in a lie about US troops' enlistment rates, & called him on it. Aside from what it revealed about about his honesty, it was nice to know that Mark would rather kill people who disagree with him than the people who'd saw his head off in a heartbeat.

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=8723

My fear about the upcoming election is that Senator McCain, determined to be a maverick, will lose the election through stubborn pride--hubris, as the ancient Greeks called it. To win, he needs to do, at minimum, three things:

(1) Hammer Obama hard, long and often on his insane and continuing determination to see America defeated in Iraq, to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Americans don't like to lose, particularly when they're only a yard from the goal line.

(2) Hammer the Supreme Court (and Obama) over its recent decision giving constitutional rights to terrorist murders captured in foreign lands in the act of killing American soldiers and innocents (and by the way, dump the close Gitmo nonsense. Do you really want terrorist murderers in prisons throughout the US?).

(3) Hammer Obama, Pelosi, Reid and all the Dems over drilling. Fully support drilling in ANWR, off the coasts, and in producing oil anywhere and everywhere within our control. Support nuclear plants, building refineries, and other potentially worthwhile alternatives, but get with the program. We can't fix things by hoping for miraculous technologies that likely won't manifest themselves in our lifetimes. Drill can and will help, substantially, and in the short term.

McCain can clearly differentiate himself from Obama and the Dems with these three issues. If he does not, he essentially aligns himself with them and alienates his base. If he does this, many independents will likely decide that if both candidates are liberals, they may as well go with the genuine article.

If Senator McCain really believes that this is an important election, that America's security and economic future are on the line--and they surely are--he needs to drop the hubris and support policies that will actually work.