Why America Went to Iraq And What Comes Next

Steve,

Please tell me how my heavy CAV troop would be useful in Afghanistan? Or maybe the heavy brigades in 3rd ID, 1AD, 4thID? Since you are such a master of military tactics and deployment stratageies, please tell me how you would use these forces in Afghanistan and how their deployment to Iraq took away from Afghanistan?

Since I am in contact with Afghanistan daily, please tell me what my telecons and emails do not oh beknighted all knowing diety of leftism.

In simpiler terms: Your religious mantra “White House approved version” is being thrown back at you as “But, of course, as a Leftist only the DNC approved version is believable to you, isn’t it?”

Congradualtions, you fell hook line and stinker for the BDS….AGAIN!!

There is a difference between newspaper articles, that are supposed to deal in facts and opinion pieces, which (especially in in the Wall Street Journal) do not deal in facts at all.

Really??? You mean like the CNN and NBC reports my then pregnant wife saw where the “objective” and “fact-based” media made up complete lies about my FOB being attacked and hundreds dead WHEN NOTHING HAPPENED.

But since they are DNC appoved lies, all leftists, who are 100% loyal to the socialist DNC, are required to believe them and parrot them at conservatives.

I see steve still needs toilet paper to wipe his mouth.

How would staying in Afghanistan (as if the US left) helped capture Osama Bin Laden who was in Pakistan? Also, how did the military buildup for the invasion of Iraq (which started in September 2002) contribute to Osama Bin Laden’s escape to Pakistan 9-10 months earlier?

Chris, 100% of anonymous sources confirm it. Bush Lied. Just read the latest investigative report on the matter from the Senate Intel Committee. Uh-oh…there’s a grey Suburban pulling up outside as I type! Oh no! What if they come and take me away for revealing the truuuuuuuuuuuu

FROM THE WASHINGTON POST
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687_pf.html

‘Bush Lied’? If Only It Were That Simple.

By Fred Hiatt
Monday, June 9, 2008; A17

Search the Internet for “Bush Lied” products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic “Bush Lied, People Died” bumper sticker is only the beginning.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.

“In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent,” he said.

There’s no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into Rockefeller’s report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”

On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you’ve mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” The report is left to complain about “implications” and statements that “left the impression” that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report’s final section, the committee takes issue with Bush’s statements about Saddam Hussein’s intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: “There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.”

Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee’s vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report’s preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, “the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers’ statements were substantiated by the intelligence.”

Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in “Bush Lied” mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not lead anyone to scrape the “Bush Lied” bumper sticker off his or her car.

But the phony “Bush lied” story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Bill Clinton faced before Bush and that President Obama or McCain may well face after: when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will always, and rightly, be reluctant.

For the next president, it may be Iran’s nuclear program, or al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without the need to fictionalize more.

Re: “After regime change in Afghanistan, and for the first three years in Iraq, a very high percentage of Muslims viewed jihad fighters with favor. After desperate jihadists, along side disgruntled minority Iraqis, waged Muslim on Muslim warfare, the Muslim world turned against them.

Considering this is notable progress in battling jihad, how do you suggest this would have happened if we had not gone into Iraq?”

The unpopularity of the al Qaeda operatives in Iraq was due mainly to their own excesses rather than any brilliant strategy on the part of the Rumsfeld team. That has been documented multiple times, and when the inevitable Conservative challenge to anything I say comes in, I will follow up with the links.

This “notable progress” for which Conservatives are high-fiving themselves consist solely of trying to get Iraq back to where it was before the invasion: a non-jihad state. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin laden were not friends. Even on the eve of the invasion, bin Laden’s only statement of support was for the “Iraqi people”, not for Saddam. We toppled a secular state that was the main opponent of Iran in the region (which is why you see those pictures of a smiling Donald Rumsfeld with Saddam Hussein from the 1980’s).

Now we have an Iranian ally in Iraq, and the Taliban and al Qaeda are still alive and kicking in Afghanistan, where the government scarcely exists outside of the capital and the country is again the world’s leading supplier of heroin (supplied by the drug lords who rule most of the country).

That is the “notable progress” for which Conservatives are handing out Medals of Freedom as though they were candy.

We, of course, get frequent press releases telling us what “great strides” we are making in Afghanistan, just like the “we are turning the corner in Iraq” stories we heard… until we heard we needed a surge in troops to continue “turning the corner”.

The fact is that Afghanistan is on its way to being a failed state, despite all the feel-good, individual stories that are supposed to convince us what a swell job we are doing there (or why, as always, if we are not it is “someone else’s fault”).

But, back to Iraq.

Re: “So how ’bout it, Steve. If we had not gone into Iraq, do you think the Muslim population would be rising up against jihad today?”

No. They would not. Becasue Iraq would still be a secular state, as it was under Saddam. And had we stayed the course in Afghanistan, George W. Bush would have brought back bin Laden “dead or alive”, and the symbol of jihad and its chief international symbol would have been gone.

But Conservatives are just fine with bin Laden free (Geroge Bush says so), because we got someone who was not part of jihad (Saddam).

And, as long as the Bush family friends in the Saudi Royal Family continue to fund the fundamentalist Muslim recruiting schools throughout the world, ther will be a future supply of students who, with bin Laden as their symbol, join in jihad.

I don’t understand Steve. You said, “And had we stayed the course in Afghanistan, George W. Bush would have brought back bin Laden “dead or alive”, and the symbol of jihad and its chief international symbol would have been gone.”

What is ‘staying the course’ in Afghanistan, and how would it have helped get UBL who was/is in Pakistan? Perhaps you’re confusing troop levels w military strategy.
UBL was gone from Afghanistan in Nov/Dec 2001. How did the course change in Nov/Dec 2001?

Okay, Phillie Steve. I see in my absence, we’ve gone off point. So let me roll back to a few things.

The unpopularity of the al Qaeda operatives in Iraq was due mainly to their own excesses rather than any brilliant strategy on the part of the Rumsfeld team.

Exactly. The jihad militants, which was not only AQ but included cooperating Sunni minority disgruntled, engage in “excess” violence and Muslim on Muslim violence in order to generate a civil war. (which you believe is going on, and the Iraqis do not…)

As a side point, none of us here are “high five’ing” ourselves (another of your regular cliches I wish you’d hold in check for rare occasions, BTW) for an action instigated by the enemy. Nor did we enter Iraq for the express purpose of allowing a militant bloodbath on Muslims to change the Muslim’s way of thinking.

It is a byproduct of the Iraq action,Steve… and has resulted in a shift in Muslim attitudes. This is a good thing.

Point 2:

Re: “So how ’bout it, Steve. If we had not gone into Iraq, do you think the Muslim population would be rising up against jihad today?”

No. They would not. Becasue Iraq would still be a secular state, as it was under Saddam.

In theory, Iraq was not a secular government. In operation, it behaved every bit the secular govt, with Sunni minority brutally running roughshod over Shia majority – all caused by religious differences.

Saddam surrounded himself with Sunni Ba’athists and IIS of Sufi and wahhabi mentality – and they absolutely aligned themselves with AQ militants and their associates. The Harmony and ISG documents prove a long term relationship with Zawahiri by Saddam, the IIS and the Ba’athists, and that Saddam used the jihad militants as a state weapon that could not be traced directly to him. The fact that Saddam and OBL didn’t share a beer on the palace veranda as drinking buds has little to do with his 3rd party use of the AQ associates network for nefarious deeds on his behalf.

But let’s go with what you and I agree with. And that is “no”, the Muslim uprising against jihad would not have happened if we did not go into Iraq. It was only there that AQ burned bridges with fellow Muslims.

Again I stress, this Muslim uprising was a successful byproduct of our regime change in Iraq.

And this same byproduct *could not* have happened had we confined ourselves only to Afghanistan. As Kathie said on another thread, there is not the infrastructure or more moderized population to cause the chaos/damage that would result in Muslims turning on the jihadists. It took this being done to the Iraqis and their more modern society and cities. Even at that, it took three years of it before they woke up and saw the militants as the un-Islamic animals they were.

This does not mean they love us. But that they no longer idolize, and promote recruitment for jihad is a massive preventative step in managing attacks in the future. Again, this is a good thing, Steve.

By contrast, had we stayed in Afghanistan only (even as under NATO command, as we are today, and have been totally since summer of 2006) – even have nabbed OBL – Muslims worldwide would continue their sympathy with the AQ/Taliban network. In fact, OBL as a martyr would boost their recruitment and support.
In fact, there may have been many Iraqis who would have left Iraq, and joined in the battle as they too sympathized with our enemy. Zarqawi would most likely still be alive, and continued his support using Iraq resources.

A choice begins a series of events. And we must evaluate the series of events – both good and bad – to assess the outcomes. The choice to remove Saddam – whether you deem it wise or not – has yielded a result that can ostracize jihad tremendously. We didn’t have to win the battle for hearts and minds because we accomplished the same by watching jihad LOSE that same battle.

All because of Iraq.

Re: “Do you think he’s been hiding in Tora Bora on the Afghan side for the past seven years? btw, ever heard of Operation Anaconda?”

Of course I don’t.
Conservatives always appear to start from the premise that invading Iraq was the greatest idea that ever came to man. As though there were not sufficient tyrants in other places. As justification I always have to hear about quotes from Bill Clinton or others about WMD’s during the 1990’s.

The fact is, the invasion of Iraq, particularly as the occupation has been managed by the Bush Administration has to count as one of the major blunders in American military history. We took what had been the world sympathy and support (even Iran assisted in the invasion of Afghanistan) and turned it into George W. Bush’s “Crusade” (another one of his blunders to use that word in a Muslim setting. First year diplomacy students know better than that, and so should the President of the United States.

Now we are in a quagmire of a civil war. John McCain dropped his “100 years in Iraq” comment again this week (regardless of the spin that his campaign put out afterward, the comment was made and it was a blunder to use those words).

We have tortured people in Saddam own prison, Abu Graibe. No matter how much we claim it was just “bad apples”, the world, and Osama bin Laden, have that recruiting symbols that he never even dreamed of getting just from the September 11 attacks.

This goes beyond talking points and “gotcha’s between you and me. This is a disaster and Conservatives constant refusal to acknowledge the level of the screw-up that Colin Powell/Disk Cheney/Donald Rumsfeld promulgated upon us is unimaginable. Books such as Fiasco and Enemy at the Gates document the level of incompetence that went into the occupation. Question such as “Do you agree with Roe v Wade” were used to screen Baghdad Administrators.

I can get along with Conservatives, Liberals, even Communists (they are fun to talk to because other than the John Birch society, they spin the strangest set of conspiracy stories that I have ever heard). However I cannot stand incompetence. It is one of my hot buttons. And what I observe here is constant Conservative minimizing and alibi-ing for what I consider to be colossal levels of incompetence in the planning and occupation of Iraq (remember the troops who sat out the invasion off the Turkish coast because the Bush Administration “forgot” to get Turkey’s permission to cross their territory to get to Northern Iraq? Didn’t anyone in the White House ever see a map?)

All I ever see here is “tut-tut” levels of comments about Bush’s incompetence. Doesn’t anyone here realize how many people have died because of that? I know that mistakes happen in wars. But they are usually mistakes because of information and missed “intelligence”. Not because the Secretary of State wants to make a point with his Generals and stubbornly, for more than three years, keeps at it. The last time we saw that was when the British, French and German generals sent waves of cannon fodder at each other for three years in World War One. And history has judged them incompetent as well.
This is a bit of a long response, but I didn’t want to just respond with verbal jabs or smart comments, or the personal insults that I receive.

I wanted to express why I am so outraged at the botched occupation of Iraq. And I just see only tepid levels of comments from most Conservatives. Chuck Hegel has been screaming about the incompetence for years now, and is roundly ignored by Conservatives for doing it.

I have heard “we are turning the corner in Iraq” one too many times and no longer believe any of the “feel good” stories that come out and ask me to “be patient” for a few months more. I don’t believe them. And I also do not believe any of “the sky is going to fall” if we get out of Iraq, whether it comes from Liberals or Conservatives. I do not believe any politician who claims a “plan” to “succeed” in Iraq. The Iraq occupation, in my opinion, is a complete and utter failure. A lot of patriotic and brave men and women gave their lives and limbs to serve their country in that occupation. But I just do not believe that wasting another 4,000 lives will “make it any better”, particularly is those 4,000+ lives are spent by an Administration that has something to prove by doing it. I never “prove” something at the cost of another life, and shame on those who talk about doing so.

So, you can say that I “Hate America” because I am so fed up with Bush Administration incompetence. That has been the claim against anyone who dared to question The Wartime President. But I still do.

Ajami shouldn’t pretend to understand Iraq when he can’t grasp the concept of analogy.

Ajami believes comparing the Civil war to Iraq shows “the aims of practically every war always shift with the course of combat, and with historical circumstances.”

Need we recall that the abolition of slavery had not been an “original” war aim, and that the Emancipation Proclamation was, by Lincoln’s own admission, a product of circumstances? A war for the Union had become a victory for abolitionism.

First, while abolition was not an original war aim, no one can contest that slavery was without doubt a driving force for the war in the first place; it was a financial concern for the south and a religious concern for the north, thus both sides saw slavery as a linchpin bringing the two sides into conflict, yet there was nothing explicate, as a stated goal for abolition until much later. —For the obvious reasons it wasn’t professed openly by Lincoln leading up to the war.

Now here’s Ajami’s confusion: this changed “circumstance” that abolished slavery was a positive one, the changed “circumstances” in Iraq were negative. We didn’t find WMD’s, got stuck in a country, ended up occupying it, turned it’s citizens against us and now want near 60 American military bases given free military reign— while we build ‘their’ democracy.

Ironic, huh?

None of this was a stated aim in 2002. All of these supplementals were not explicate ‘aims’ of the administration; never was there any aim to occupy Iraq; the aim was to liberate Iraq (Operation Liberate Iraq) and terminate an imminent threat.

Ajami saying these aims are now good and will be. He has no choice but to say that; in refusing to admit they were Administration blunders he pushes them into the future in an idealism of hopeful possibilities for continued germination by conjuring up historical ‘aims’ that can change due to ‘circumstances’ in war.

As historical analogies go, this one is really poor. Flagrant incompetence in the Bush administration is found on multiple levels from the 2002-03 period and afterwards, and it cannot be mitigated by observations about the varied “aims” of other wars due to “circumstances”. This particular analogy is an attempt to put to service the Bush administration’s universal argument that freedom and democracy in Iraq was worth it, is worth it, and will be worth it, despite whatever present evidence there is to the contrary.

Ajami’s picture is an aesthetic insult that results in a logical injury.

“GWB’s not running again.”

But McBush is:

…
(WSJ) Mr. Hart called the president “a 200-pound ball and chain” around McCain’s ankle, a linkage Sen. Obama and the Democratic National Committee are trying to reinforce daily in voters’ minds. “Unless he finds some way to cut it loose,” Mr. Hart adds, “he’s going to be dragging it right through the election.”
…
The anti-Bush evidence is overwhelming. The latest poll findings add to the stretch of more than three years in which majorities have expressed disapproval of Mr. Bush’s job performance. And increasingly, voters don’t like him personally. By 60% to 30%, they have negative views of him, his worst showing ever.
…

(CBS) Only Presidents Nixon (24 percent) and Truman (22 percent) have seen polls showing job approval ratings lower than 25 percent during their presidencies, according to Gallup Polls. President Carter’s all-time low was 26 percent.

Gallup shows Bush’s rating is worse than Carter’s. I am confident before fall Gallup will indicate Bush’s rating will be worse than Nixon’s.

Given these numbers, your “derangement syndrome” thesis hasn’t any support.

Steve (#19) – You said incompetent Bush WH management of the Afghan campaign allowed UBL to escape from the Tora Bora complex in Nov/Dec 2001.

Ok … I was a forward air combat controller at Tora Bora when we threw everything in the conventional arsenal at targets there. Tell me which airstrike order my team issued the Bush WH withdrew or modified? Tell me which weapon request the Bush WH withdrew or substituted?

Only signals intel indicated UBL was present at Tora Bora in Nov/Dec 2001 by phone intercepts. By then UBL and AQ was relying on foot couriered communications. There was no actual visual sighting, no on-the-ground intel source of UBL’s presence. The level of bombardment of Tora Bora was so significant, you would have to be very lucky to make the run, and survive, to the outer cordon – above ground or underground.

Unless you were there, don’t make reckless statement and say we didn’t do enough or allowed an HVT evade capture.

Yes, THANK YOU DAVID (#32).

You will notice that willfully ignorant lefties like Philly Steve love to parade their ignorance and pretend it is fact. That is the mind warping effect of the big lie they have told themselves about the conduct of U.S. Troops and the Bush Administration.

In Philly’s case the pathology is increasingly evident even to casual readers. His rants, often showing more bile than brains are symptomatic of the disease.

For someone who accuses us of listening too, getting instructions from, and believing Pat Robertson (I doubt many conservatives here listen to him, as was pointed out to you), you sure quote him enough. I think either you or those supplying you with your 100% leftist approved thoughts are about the only ones giving him ratings.

And again with the lie of “civil war”. You then top it off by displaying your spoon fed ‘knowledge’ of the Green Zone and rant on. You proved yet again, as a 100% loyal brainwashed leftist, that you fall hook, line, and stinker for what your ‘thought leaders’ tell you. And we give you a 100% leftist pass.

I lived in The IZ (or Green Zone) for a while in Iraq in 2007 about 100m from the pool behind the “Presidential Palace” across from the Believers Palace. Watched myself “die” as CNN and NBC made up stories from their Hotel down the street which they never left. But then, no ammount of facts or reality will disuade you and you will continue to attack and slander all you want, claiming we are ‘haters’ and you are sooo clean and virtuous when you finally cross too many lines and we (I in particular as I stated a month or more ago) give you and your bile mantra no quarter.

Re: “There you go again Steve.
The President never said that.”

Are you saying that Pat Robertson is a liar?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136107,00.html

WASHINGTON — Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson (search) says he warned President Bush before U.S. troops invaded Iraq (search) that the United States would sustain casualties but that Bush responded, “Oh, no, we’re not going to have any casualties.”

White House and campaign advisers denied that Bush made the comment, with Karen Hughes (search) saying, “I don’t believe that happened. He must have misunderstood or misheard it.”

Robertson, in a cable news interview that aired Tuesday night, said God had told him that the war would be messy and a disaster. When he met with Bush in Nashville before the war Bush did not listen to his advice, Robertson said, and believed Saddam Hussein was an evil tyrant who needed to be removed.

“He was just sitting there, like, ‘I’m on top of the world,’ and I warned him about this war,” Robertson said.

“I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, ‘Mr. President, you better prepare the American people for casualties.’ ‘Oh, no, we’re not going to have any casualties.’ ‘Well,’ I said, ‘it’s the way it’s going to be.’ And so, it was messy. The lord told me it was going to be, A, a disaster and, B, messy.”

(AP) Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says talks with the United States on a longterm security agreement have reached a “dead end.”

Al-Maliki says the talks slumped because each side refused the
other’s demands.

He says the initial framework agreed upon was to have been an
accord “between two completely sovereign states.”

But he says the U.S. proposals “do not take into consideration
Iraq’s sovereignty.”

The prime minister said Friday “this is not acceptable.” The
American demands “violate Iraqi sovereignty. At the end, we
reached a dead end.”

Washington and Baghdad have been negotiating behind closed doors
a deal that would give U.S. troops legal grounds for an extended
stay in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires Dec. 31.

–Poetic Justice

MataHarley,

I have no issue with you here. You’re open to redeployment/withdrawal if the Iraqi’s want us “out” and they interpret our presence as an occupation and a run on their sovereignty; we agree here.

If these talks completely collapse (which is hard to imagine) and no new agreement is reached to replace the expiring U.N. mandate covering the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq, the United States might have to withdraw. Most likely there will be a all-parties-unhappy compromise, but even here one finds GOP failure. Let me explain.

The gist of all this political hustle that’s fascinating to me comes in two parts: one, it is to ensure Bush’s legacy; and two, it may really damage McCain’s campaign.

For Bush, Iraq will define his legacy by how well the seed of democracy germinates there (as there’s nothing else to define it). As we are now arriving at the summum bonum in Iraq, that event of great importance, we are looking at our future presence, influence and interests in the country and the region –hence, this issue is crucial to Bush: If Bush cannot get what he wants from these talks, in essence, he will have been “thrown out of Iraq.” (Of course, much of this may come down to the degree of what he gets or doesn’t, but still damage is done –based on the current set of failure in negotiations and where they are going.)

For McCain, whether the negotiations end in total failure or they produce an unsatisfactory-each-sides compromise, McCain also could find himself in great political trouble.

Winning the Iraq “war” and continuing Bush’s ME policy are the paramount issues of McCain’s presidential bid. But what if there is no war to win because the Iraqis either tell the US to go home, or won’t allow us to conduct significant operations within Iraq, or from Iraq (here they have already said they will not permit it) or, as you and I discussed, keeping troops kept in Iraq in militarily compromising duties? What if the Iraqis signal that maintaining a high level of U.S. troops in Iraq is not that important to them? These questions and more are what many are now asking in political contexts. How could McCain continue to attack Barack Obama as a defeatist, a surrenderer, a cut-and-runner who would imperil the United States by yanking troops out of Iraq, when the Iraq’s are declaring they want them to leave? Obama would be viewed as having grasped the situation accurately.

McBush would lose almost all his aces in the campaign to Obama!

The main point is that McCain’s pro-occupation stance–as much as it is out of sync with popular opinion–could even further be undermined by Iraq itself if the government that he claims needs major U.S. military assistance says it would prefer to do without it– by degree or categorically, it doesn’t matter which one, either one would still be damaging. (More on this in another post.)

Therefore, as I see it, McCain’s presidential campaign, and Bush’s legacy, is now being held hostage by Iraqi leaders opposed to the US occupation!

As the future of Iraq lays in the balance of the security agreement, so also does Bush and McCain’s futures.

This, in my opinion, explains the heavy-handedness by the US negotiators, and why as I read conservative commentary on the ME there is next to nothing on this subject; however, us liberals are pecking away tomes on this potential eviction notice (whether in degree or kind).

Let’s be frank here, this agreement is crucial to Bush and McCain, and if they don’t come out looking good and smelling like roses on this, it’s great foreign policy ammo for Obama. This explains the silence from the ME hawks on the agreement —they’re clinching their teeth with bated breath.