Scorpio's World

Tuesday, July 22, 2008
3:58:00 PM EDT

               The Felicity Daily Herald

 

 

Here's McCain's Op-Ed piece that was REJECTED by the 'New York Times':

 

 

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation "hard" but not "hopeless." Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," he said on January 10, 2007. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that "our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence." But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, "Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress." Even more heartening has been progress that's not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City?actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama's determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All thathas changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his "plan for Iraq" in advance of his first "fact finding" trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five "surge" brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his "plan for Iraq." Perhaps that's because he doesn't want to hear what theyhave to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times fromour troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be "very dangerous."

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we've had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the "Mission Accomplished" banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war?only of ending it. But if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

 

                                               ***********

 

Quite frankly I don't know 'why' the New York Times rejected Mumbles McCain's Op-Ed piece, because quite frankly .... and if the New York Times is in Barack's hip pocket as the Right alledges ... the 'Times' would have run it because McCain says NOTHING except "I'm in Iraq until the cows come home" or "C'mon, Barack: Admit you were wrong about the surge!"

 

McCain, like Bush, has no definition for what constitutes VICTORY in Iraq, and neither does McCain advance SPECIFICS as to how he Plans to end the"Iraq Folly" beyond: 

 

            "We won't leave until we've WON!"

 

                    (whatever that entails)

 

 

Hell, Mumbles: "The New York Times" did YOU a favor by not releasing your silly Op-Ed piece, baby! 

 

 

    Allow me to comment about this SURGE business, okay!

 

                                 : )

 

I've NEVER been in the U.S. Military! Never worn the Uniform of any Branch of the U.S. Armed Services. Yet having NEVER experienced the art of Military Warfare .... I bet I could have drafted a Plan whereby employing 50,000 additional U.S. Troops (in addition to the 150,000 already there) to temporarily quell 'sectarian violence' would have accomplished TEMPORARY Relief just as easily as what General Petraeus pulled off!! So all this Right wing 'chest pounding' about the brilliance (?) and success of the SURGE is nothing but false bravado and a false sense of temporary victory relief! As Barack says:

 

 

"We say we must stay when things are going bad; and we say we must stay when things are going good:  Which is it?" 

 

 

See. The TRUTH is .... Republicans (McCain's Church) want to forever STAY in Iraq to rape Iraq of its Oil Reserves! Simple as that!! 

 

                  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 

We've long taken our eye off the ball (bin Laden) to seek instead a 'Land Grab' in Iraq and to fill the pockets of Cheney's boys (Halliburton), Bush's boys (Arms Manufacturers), and the GOP coffers (Chevron).

 

 

             SURGE SUCCESS, my black ass!   : )

 

 

Bush, the GOP, Right wingers, neocons, and Conservatives want 'US' to bleed Iraq dry until ALL of its riches (OIL) land into the deep pockets of those that perpetuated this 'Crime Against Humanity' in the first place!

 

           McCain's Buddies!

 

 

    All while al Qaeda runs amuck in Afghanistan & Pakistan.

 

 

     All while the US Dollar ain't worth a damn worldwide.

 

 

 

All while the wolf is at the door of MILLIONS of American households!

 

 

I hope to god .... Americans make these bastards PAY this November!!

 

 

Written by scorpiomkm Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

This entry has 0 comments: (Add your own)