Nevada Senator and Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaims the Iraq War is lost
Not again! Harry Reid was already wrong about the Iraq War in the video above.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid expressed doubt in the U.S. military operation in Afghanistan Thursday, saying, “I’m not confident it’s going to work.”In an interview that aired Thursday on CNN’s “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer,” the five-term Nevada senator said, “The president has indicated as commander-in-chief he is going to start drawing down the forces this summer.”
Reid also noted the $100 billion the country is spending, calling it a “huge amount of money” that the nation “cannot continue to keep dumping” into the Afghanistan war.
Sharing his respect for Gen. David Petraeus, commander of coalition forces, Reid said, “I’ve talked to General Petraeus…and he thinks things are going well.”
“I hope it’s going well,” he continued. “But the American people have a … very short attention span.”
Yeah, but not so short a memory or attention span that we cannot remember that YOU were wrong before and ready to quit in Iraq.
Dingy Harry should stick to waking up Vice President Biden when he takes a nap during “The One’s” speeches.
The actual war in Iraq was over some time ago, after the Bush “SURGE” was the final nail in the coffin. But, now, President Obama will take the credit for the end of the Iraq War which former President Bush deserves.
The decision to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq’s cities on June 30 was made by Iraqis, not Americans. That’s why the Iraqi government is holding a massive celebration to mark the redeployment as National Sovereignty Day. At the insistence of Iraqis, the Status of Forces Agreement, which was concluded late last year between the Iraqi government and the Bush Administration, required that U.S. troops be out of Iraq’s urban areas by June 30, 2009, and withdrawn from the country altogether by the end of 2011. Now, Iraqi citizens and the American forces hovering in Iraq’s countryside are holding their breath for the first stage of testing Iraq’s ability to protect itself. It didn’t get off to an auspicious start with the news that four U.S. soldiers were killed in combat on the eve of the withdrawal.
But, is the war really over or is Obama just drawing down troops because American political will is drained and he promised a withdrawal during the campaign?
Oh yeah, remember that Obama opposed the Surge as did Democratic Senate Majority leader Harry Reid who proclaimed the war was lost.
Nevada Democrat Senator Harry Reid: Iraq War is Lost
Almost the two year anniversary for Dingy Harry Reid who is up for re-election in 2010.
The good citizens of Nevada should really retire this MORON from the United States Senate next year.
So much for deadlines and timetables since the United States won the Iraq War with “The Surge” that both Senate Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid (above) and Obama opposed.
President Barack Obama plans to order that all U.S. combat troops be withdrawn from Iraq by August 2010, administration officials said Tuesday, ending the war that defined his upstart presidential campaign three months later than he had promised.
Obama’s plan would pull out all combat troops 19 months after his inauguration, although he had promised repeatedly during the 2008 campaign that he would withdraw them 16 months after taking office. That schedule, based on removing roughly one brigade a month, was predicated on commanders determining that it would not endanger U.S. troops left behind or Iraq’s fragile security.
Pledging to end the war in 16 months helped to build enormous grass-roots support for Obama’s White House bid.
The withdrawal plan â€” an announcement could come as early as this week â€” calls for leaving a large contingent of troops behind, between 30,000 and 50,000 troops, to advise and train Iraqi security forces and to protect U.S. interests.
Also staying beyond the 19 months would be intelligence and surveillance specialists and their equipment, including unmanned aircraft, according to two administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan has not been made public.
The complete withdrawal of American forces will take place by December 2011, the period by which the U.S. agreed with Iraq to remove all troops.
Currently there are 142,000 troops in Iraq and by leaving 30-50,000 troops, there will still be plenty of soldiers there that can take up arms if conditions warrant.
So, who gets the credit for ending the Iraq War?
It should go to President Bush and General Petraeus whose “SURGE” pretty much ended the hostilities.
Marine Maj. Gen. John Kelly, who just left his job overseeing U.S. operations in Anbar Province, said Tuesday that he saw violence drop to an almost “meaningless” level over the past year.
Kelly told reporters Tuesday that in the area that was the home ground of the Sunni insurgency, American combat forces don’t have enough to do and most could have pulled out months ago.
“There is still a security issue there, but in the province I just left the (Iraqi) army and the police are more than handling the remnants of what used to be al-Qaida,” Kelly said. “There’s other parts of Iraq that aren’t going quite as well but all of Iraq is doing pretty well.”
Exit Question: Will President Bush get any credit for ending the war? Or for just starting it? And the 4,200 plus killed and 31,000 injured?
Is Barack Obama playing politics with the Iraq War?
Isn’t it obvious?
But, John McCain does NOT have to paint Obama as a typical,duplicitous, lying politician on the Iraq War issue. As El Rushbo said today on his radio show the American public almost expects that from their pols. Rush suggests instead of emphasizing that Obama is a “ROOKIE” and inexperienced – one prone and destined to make poor decisions.
In other words, a politician who cannot be trusted with the Presidency. Like somebody who would rather go to the gym rather than see wounded troops. Somebody who is ALL ABOUT HIMSELF – even for a politician.
The script of Troops says it all:
Anncr: Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan.
He hadnâ€™t been to Iraq in years.
He voted against funding our troops.
And now, he made time to go to the gym, but cancelled a visit with wounded troops.
Seems the Pentagon wouldnâ€™t allow him to bring cameras.
John McCain is always there for our troops.
McCain. Country first.
John McCain: Iâ€™m John McCain and I approve this message.
Notice today how Barack Obama is moving away from foreign policy issues.
John McCain today in Denver, Colorado rejected Barack Obama’s “AUDACITY OF HOPELESSNESS” for Iraq.
McCain is RIGHT but the war is unpopular and Americans after five years in the Middle East are fatigued with war. Flap doubts that anyone is listening to Obama or McCain at this point about the Iraq War or care one iota about the war on terror in Afghanistan.
Run of the mill voters are more concerned about the economy (meaning their jobs) and the price of gas.
Did Barack Obama find support for his Iraq War withdrawal plan while in Iraq?
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of the dramatic turnaround in U.S. fortunes, “does not want a timetable,” Mr. Obama reported with welcome candor during a news conference yesterday. In an interview with ABC, he explained that “there are deep concerns about . . . a timetable that doesn’t take into account what [American commanders] anticipate might be some sort of change in conditions.”
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki’s timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama’s. More significant, it would be “a timetable which Iraqis set” — not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki “wants some flexibility in terms of how that’s carried out.”
Other Iraqi leaders were more directly critical. As Mr. Obama acknowledged, Sunni leaders in Anbar province told him that American troops are essential to maintaining the peace among Iraq’s rival sects and said they were worried about a rapid drawdown.
The answer is NO.
But the American MSM has reported “The MESSIAH’S” Iraq visit a success even though his policy has NOT been accepted favorably by the major players there.
American voters grow weary of the Iraq War and are showing little attention to withdrawal plans as their gasoline prices skyrocket.
Obama may be wrong but Americans hear “get out” and unfortunately agree.
Damn. Talk about triangulation, or “hide the ball.”
Here is John McCain on the Iraq War Surge (interview with CBS’s Katie Couric):
Couric: Senator McCain, Senator Obama says, while the increased number of US troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What’s your response to that? McCain: I don’t know how you respond to something that is as– such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane [phonetic] was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that’s just a matter of history. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn’t make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed.
They were out there. They were protecting these sheiks. We had the Anbar awakening. We now have a government that’s effective. We have a legal system that’s working, although poorly. And we have progress on all fronts. Including– an incredible measure of security for the people of Iraq. There will still be attacks. Al Qaeda’s not defeated. But the progress has been immense. And to not recognize that, and why it happened, and how it happened, I think is– is really quite a commentary.
Couric: A commentary on what?
McCain: That Senator Obama does not understand the challenges we face. And … not understand the need for the surge. And– and the fact that he did not understand that, and still denies that it has succeeded, I think the American people will make their judgment. And I think that they will agree with me, that at enormous sacrifice, after four years, nearly four years of failed strategy, we have succeeded. And our troops will come home with honor. And we won’t be defeated. And there won’t be chaos in the region. There won’t be increased Iranian influence in the region. And it will have a bearing on what happens in Afghanistan, as well as the entire region of the world. And I’m proud of what they’ve done. And to deny their success– I think is a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened. The American people will make a judgment.
Couric: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops … help the situation in Iraq?
Obama: Katie, as â€¦ you’ve asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There’s no doubt.
Couric: But yet you’re saying â€¦ given what you know now, you still wouldn’t support it â€¦ so I’m just trying to understand this.
Obama: Because â€¦ it’s pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that’s money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision– to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.
Couric: And I really don’t mean to belabor this, Senator, because I’m really, I’m trying â€¦ to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq â€¦
Couric â€¦ would exist today without the surge?
Obama: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there’s no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that– not just today, not just yesterday, but I’ve said that– previously. What that doesn’t change is that we’ve got to have a different strategic approach if we’re going to make America as safe as possible.
Flap continues to be amazed that this “ROOKIE” will be allowed to triangulate or fail to make a position statement on “THE SURGE.”
Suppose it comes from Obama’s days when he was allowed to vote PRESENT in the Illinois Legislature.
Damn Obama. Man up and take a position. Take a stand.
Sen. John McCain criticized Sen. Barack Obama’s foreign policy position at the onset of his landmark tour of Iraq, saying he hoped the trip would address his “gross misjudgment.”Of course, Barack Obama and the Democrats like Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were wrong about Iraq – past and present.
Interesting how they are NOW taking credit for success.
Will American voters realize this or is there Iraq War and Bush fatigue?