THAT'S what I mean by Obama's heart wasn't in keeping troops on the ground in Iraq....

Michale.....

The influence we have seen is covert deniable influence.

w/o US troops in TOP, the influence will undoubtedly become more overt...

I still stand by my prediction. When Obama leaves office in Jan of 2013 there will be at least 2K to 5K troops in the Iraq TOP....

Michale....

The "problem" is that the Tea Party was a REAL movement that generated REAL political power and REAL change..

The Left's "Occupy" thingy is just a fad..

Like the Edsel or the Pet Rock....

Michale.....

Or, perhaps, trying trickle-down over and over and hoping for a different result? That's sanity from the GOP? Heh.

No argument there...

My only complaint is the prevalent attitude that Democrats are somehow BETTER than Republicans..

An attitude, I might add, that has absolutely NO supportive evidence and plenty of contrary evidence...

I'm actually surprised you didn't have anything to say about the final sentence in this article...

Yea, I caught that...

You are dead on ballz accurate... Mission HAS been accomplished...

But WHOSE "mission"??? :D

Michale.....

I'm actually surprised you didn't have anything to say about the final sentence in this article...

Heh.

:-)

-CW

We actually ARE going to leave 150-160 troops in Iraq, to guard the embassay and sell the Iraqis weapons.

I'm not arguing with you on Iran, what I'm saying is that this influence has already been happening and will continue to happen, whether our troops are there or not. The only way to avoid it would have been to leave Saddam in power, in essence.

As for [3] -

A country can't be a little bit sovereign, just like a woman can't be a little bit pregnant. Sure, they're in their early days. Sure, it may fail (ours did, see: Articles of Confederation). But once we handed it over to them (which happened under Bush, incidentally), it is their country to do with as they see fit. Period.

With absolutely no proof, I see it as Obama and Maliki needed an issue for public consumption both at home and abroad, and they settled on the immunity issue. The real problem was Sadr, but they didn't want the media to focus on it. I think both Maliki and Obama would have been OK with up to 5K troops remaining. But Sadr wasn't playing ball. Much like, in the example above, Boehner put out some silly reason for pulling out of the grand bargain, even though the reality was the Tea Partiers in his caucus just said "no" to the deal.

I strongly suspect that some troops will be returning to Iraq, after a short period of time, as trainers. Once the political hot button issue of "full withdrawal" is over for Maliki and Sadr, they'll probably invite a few thousand back in. I could be wrong, but that's my guess.

David [4] -

On Bachmann: We report (her own words), you decide. Heh. I actually cut some even-more embarassing stuff from her quote, you should read the full transcript for more.

Michale [9] -

Or, perhaps, trying trickle-down over and over and hoping for a different result? That's sanity from the GOP? Heh.

-CW

And phrases like "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it" and doing the same stimulus over and over hoping for a different result is the Democrat's example of sanity???

:D

Michale.....

The TP is exactly what is wrong with this country. No compassion, no thought, no good will. Just knee jerk, simplistic responses that can be read off a teletype and put on bumper stickers.

Oh gimme a frak'in break..

It sounds like you are describing the latest Democrat response to the Tea Party, the "Occupy" gang...

A gang, it turns out, is just as violent and greedy and compassion-less as you claim the Tea Party is.

Why don't you say what REALLY pisses you off about the Tea Party..

They succeeded..

They succeeded at a REAL grass roots campaign that effected REAL political change..

Something the Left, with their MoveOns and their CodePinks tried to do and failed, over and over again...

THAT's your beef against the Tea Party...

Because it's a group that reaches REAL Americans.

It's a group that is everything the Hysterical Left is not...

EFFECTIVE....

Michale.....

I pick on Bachmann because of what she said in Chris' article above. And Bachmann, in particular.

But I have many good friends in the Tea Party who see things in a different way. What the folks I know get right- is there sense of anger about many of the problems in Washington. What they get wrong is- many of their solutions.

Are they marketed to? Sure. Then I feel it's our responsibility to reach out to them and help them see a larger picture.

Heck, it's not easy to keep up on everything. Especially when the news doesn't help.

-David

I would. They are bomb throwing proto-nihilists who believe the only view that matters is theirs. There is no compromise, they are always correct.

The TP is exactly what is wrong with this country. No compassion, no thought, no good will. Just knee jerk, simplistic responses that can be read off a teletype and put on bumper stickers.

TP leadership is worse. They are arrant cowards, afraid of their own shadows and interested only in their own advancement. Or else they are completely twofaced hypocrites like the Koch brothers with their astroturf organizations.

Well, I am certainly glad we aren't getting into the Left v Right name-calling meme, eh? :D

Michale.....

Here, here, Chris. Excellent post to put things in perspective!

-David

Iraq is NOT a "full-fledged" democracy.

It's a fragile democracy that is in it's infancy..

“A civilization flourishes best when it can protect itself.”
-George Kirk, FINAL FRONTIER

Iraq is no where near being able to protect itself..

Now, I completely agree that Iraq has earned to right to choose for itself.

But I liken it to Iraq being an adolescent teen and the US is his/her parents.. Yes, you want to let your teen grow and learn but you also want to protect that teen from the influences of dirtbags and scumbags in life..

EVEN if said teen doesn't WANT your protection..

Obama should have made a better argument for keeping US troops in the TOP for a while longer. But, as I said, I am sure his heart wasn't in it. He was likely thinking that he has a re-election to win and he couldn't piss off his base any more than he already has...

Having said that, I AM heartened to see that Obama didn't give in to the (reported) sticking point that Iraq wanted jurisdiction over US troops in case of violations of Iraqi law..

If THAT was the real reason any deal fell thru, then Obama does deserve credit for putting our troops first and foremost..

But I have a feeling that his re-election, not the US troops, was upper most in Obama's mind....

Michale.....

Unless, of course, one realizes that THAT is exactly what has happened to date...

Iran knows how sentimental and protective America is towards her troops.

We could leave 100 troops in Iraq and it would be a deterrent to Iranian aggression.. Perhaps not sufficient a deterrent, but a deterrent nonetheless..

Iran is a threat in the region. No amount of spin will change that...

Michale.....

That was a distinct pleasure to read, indeed. Beyond compare.

Have another cup of coffee and make mine a Kahlua with a healthy Bailey's Irish Cream twist.