New York Times Declines McCain Op-Ed

[corplinx]

Is this thread still going? I am sure McCain could get an op-ed at WorldNetDaily anytime to rebut Obama.





Edited to Add: HEheheheheheheh

 

[GreyICE]

Odd how Obama didn't want to quote or listen to Dubik back on August 2007 (http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13664&Itemid=131 ).

At that time Dubik noted that the Iraqi "army and the police are fighting for their country and taking casualties, as all you know, sometimes three times the number of Coalition forces." Obama insists the Iraqis haven't stepped up to plate to help defend their country ... that we have to withdraw our soldiers to force them to do that. Clueless.

Wow, you got all of this out of this line:

Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.

It's almost like you're... no. Making stuff up? Never.

Dubik said "there is still very tough challenges and in many cases no quick solutions for the challenges that the security forces face." That's at a time when Obama had been insisting for years we withdraw combat forces.

Obama's words:

As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in.

Remember folks, this is a no-spin zone we're entering. BAC's words are all fair representations of Obama's opinions.

Dubik said "one of the most exciting things from my standpoint in the last couple of months, in my first couple of months here has been the number of police that the government has hired as a result of opportunities created in the offensive operations following the surge." You see, Dubik didn't agree with Obama about the efficacy of the surge. Not at all. Still doesn't.

Obama's words:

In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted.

It is a No Spin Zone! No distortions here, which is why he so liberally uses actual quotes from Obama's writing and opinions by experts.

And the sentence you quoted from Obama's Op Ed is a good example of Obama not listening to what our military commanders actually say... just taking what they say out of context in order to further his own political aims. Dubik told the Armed Services Committee that the Iraqi army is still reliant on American support. That it needs more leaders, weapons and training. He said that although they'd reach 580,000 in numbers by the end of the year, there is still a long way to go before they are self sufficient. He said that Iraqi officials had estimated to him that the country probably would not be able to assume responsibility for internal security until BETWEEN 2009 and 2012, or to defend its borders before 2018. And his 2009 comment was only in reference to the army ... not about the state of Iraqi police forces which are just as important if Iraqis are to maintain control of their cities.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/07/09/ST2008070902270.html

Iraq's army and police will be fully manned and operational by mid-2009, possibly as early as April, the top U.S. general in charge of building Iraqi security forces said yesterday, signaling the prospect that Iraqi forces could assume primary combat responsibilities in the country while U.S. troops shift to a supporting role.

Truth, folks. I cannot agree with BAC more. The right-wing media definitely does not deceive or lie to anyone who reads it frequently, so you know that everything he posts is the honest truth.

He said there were too many factors that still need to be consider putting a date on the calendar to bring our troops home. In fact, let me quote the answer he gave the Democrat who heads the committee when he asked for a date when the Iraqis will be able to handle their own security without US help: "I would not put an X on the calendar, Mr. Chairman."

Finally, when he said the Iraqi "ground forces" would "mostly" be ready by 2009, he was talking about mid-2009 ... not January which is when Obama wants to start removing 2 combat brigades a month. I wonder how doing that would affect his expectations?

Obama:

We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.

Thanks for providing an example of Obama's distortions.

Of course. I'm happy to provide your version of distortions all the time. Any suggestions that distortion is being used as a synonym for fact here is clearly off-base.

As to "taking responsibility" Dubik noted that Iraqi forces now control 9 of the countries 18 provinces. All that happened without us withdrawing forces. It wouldn't have happened at all if we had withdrawn, as Obama was insisting we do at the time. And Dubik expected that by the end of 2008, the Iraqi army would control the rest of the country. But it would be a tenuous control because he told the Armed Services Committee that security gains "can be reversed and can be stymied. Some form of partnership and assistance ... in my opinion is still necessary".

Obama:

As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later.

We weren't careless "getting in". That's yet another distortion by someone who has never served a day in the military in his life or run any organization bigger than a dozen people.

Army:

A nearly 700-page study released Sunday by the Army found that "in the euphoria of early 2003," U.S.-based commanders prematurely believed their goals in Iraq had been reached and did not send enough troops to handle the occupation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/29/world/main4217961.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4217961

That is NOT what our military commanders say. That is NOT what the Iraqis say. Obama is simply not listening to anyone EXCEPT his constituency at MoveOndotOrg. Stuck On Stupid.

Remember folks, you can trust this man. And you can trust the right-wing media he got all of his information from. Obama is obviously a lunatic liberal who has lost touch with reality.

 

[BeAChooser]

Wow, you got all of this out of this line:

No, GreyICE, I got all that by listening to ALL of what Obama has said. And looking at ALL that Dubik actually said. Rather than quoting Obama out of context (like you did) quoting Dubik out of context (like he did).

It's almost like you're... no. Making stuff up? Never.

If you're going to call me a liar, you better be prepared to prove it. Otherwise, I'll report you to the forum moderators. I can back up everything I said in that post. You sure you want to go there?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070902270.html
Quote:
Iraq's army and police will be fully manned and operational by mid-2009, possibly as early as April, the top U.S. general in charge of building Iraqi security forces said yesterday

... snip ...

Truth, folks.

From the WP? Generally not.

Go here: http://armedservices.house.gov/hearing_information.shtml . Find this: "Lieutenant General James Dubik, USA (pdf)" Click the "pdf" and download Dubik's written statement. Here are excerpts.

While the Iraqis are achieving success, challenges remain. As I often said to my command in Baghdad, “progress doesn’t result in no problems, it results in new problems.” To summarize the main point of my testimony today as it was last January: success is mixed.

You see, it's not all roses.

The Iraqis have taken advantage of the security situation created by the offensive operations that they and the coalition forces began last spring and continue today.

You see, the Iraqis have been stepping up to the place ... without *forcing* them to do so with a premature withdrawal.

As I said, however, challenges remain. The Iraqi maneuver forces are still reliant on coalition enablers. The training proficiency is basic. Leader shortages exist, and the distribution of leaders is uneven. Leader development and professionalization is budding, but still lagging. Although major reconciliation efforts are on-going, there are still pockets of sectarianism that will take time to reduce further. Last, the problems that accompany rapid growth, that any nation, including the United States, would face, are evident in Iraq."

You see, they aren't as ready to stand on their own as Obama and you would have people believe.

As I stated before, Iraq is growing an army while at war, while taking casualties, while taking losses, and while developing their own organizational processes in the security ministries. So we should not underestimate the difficulty of the task remaining. The successes of the past year plus can be reversed; progress can be stymied. The enemies of freedom and of a new Iraq are still very active. They are still capable, though in diminishing frequency, of conducting violent attacks on the innocent. They still seek to destabilize and de-legitimize the Government of Iraq. They want to reverse the gains of the past fifteen months. They have not given up, nor do I expect them to. They recognize that they have lost the initiative, but they still seek to regain it. Our assistance may change in organization and size over the coming months or years, but some form of partnership and assistance, consistent with strategic objectives is still necessary. The Iraqis know this; we should remember it too.

His statement certainly didn't say we're ready to withdraw. Not starting in January of 2009, like Obama insists we do. In fact,

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/congress/24175964.html?page=2&c=y

When Dubik testified before Congress in January, he said Iraq was on track to reach some 580,000 security force members by the end of the year but that the forces still were a long way from becoming self-sufficient. Iraqi officials estimated to him that the country probably would not be able to assume responsibility for internal security until sometime between 2009 and 2012, or defend its borders before 2018, he said. In his testimony Wednesday, Dubik said believes that 2009 to 2012 window is still accurate.

Now on the http://armedservices.house.gov/hearing_information.shtml link you'll find a link (titled Audio Transcript) where you can hear General Dubik's actual testimony (which is roughly the same as the written statement) and the question and answer session that followed. You can confirm that Dubik said that the 2009 to 2012 window is still accurate. Odd how the Washington Post never mentioned that "to 2012" part of the statement. Well, not all that odd considering their political bias. That audio transcript also records Dubik saying the following (which went unnoted by the WP).

When asked by the committee members when the Iraqis would be able to handle their own security, where would he put the X on the calendar ... here is what he said:

I would not put an X on that calendar, Mr Chairman.

When pressed by the Chairman, with respect to ground forces, he said it could be as early as April, could be as late as August, before they are "mostly" done. Keep in mind that answer was predicated on the number of troops in Iraq remaining the same until then ... not on a case where 2 combat brigades were being withdrawn every month starting in January. Not on a case where Iraqis would suddenly be shoved into roles they aren't yet ready for or a situation where they feel they might be abandoned. Ask Dubik the question with that assumption, and I expect you'd have gotten a much different answer.

Later, General Dubik states regarding withdrawal timelines

With respect to the first quarter of 2009, the Minister of Defense ... talked about a period beginning in the first quarter of 2009, ending in 2012, as the period in which he thought he could take on full responsibility for the counterinsurgency fight.

Not quite the picture the WP and Obama want to paint.

Regarding police forces, Dubik talks about them around 1:20 in the audio recording. As I stated, they aren't as capable as the armed forces. Remember, the police don't get deployed and really tested until after the security situation is taken care of by the Army and they can move in. What will be their morale if we start pulling combat brigades out at 2 a month before their abilities are actually confirmed?

In listening to that tape of Dubik's testimony ... keep in mind that had we done what Obama proposed we do in January of 2007, NONE of the success he talks about would have occurred. And as astounding as it seems, Obama says that even if he knew back then what we know now, he'd still have been against the surge that made all of what Dubik talks about possible. Stuck on Stupid.

Quote:
A nearly 700-page study released Sunday by the Army found that "in the euphoria of early 2003," U.S.-based commanders prematurely believed their goals in Iraq had been reached and did not send enough troops to handle the occupation.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...r=HOME_4217961

Keep in mind that this was a time when Obama wanted to pull out what soldiers we had in Iraq. And let the country go to hell. Stuck on Stupid.