Sen. Obama responds to their tiresome “you hate the troops” attack:
This country is united in our support for our troops, but we also owe them a plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else’s civil war. Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe the course we are on in Iraq is working, but I do not.
And if there ever was a reflection of that it’s the fact that Senator McCain required a flack jacket, ten armored Humvees, two Apache attack helicopters, and 100 soldiers with rifles by his side to stroll through a market in Baghdad just a few weeks ago.
Governor Romney and Senator McCain are still supporting a war that has cost us thousands of lives, made us less safe in the world, and resulted in a resurgence of al-Qaeda. It is time to end this war so that we can redeploy our forces to focus on the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and all those who plan to do us harm.
UPDATE: John McCain is trying to – stupidly – claim that flack jacket and flak jacket aren’t the same thing. He might want to chat to the boys in the Department of Defense too.
Yeah, let’s go police a different civil war.
This country is united in our support for our troops
The Barack man has dealt the Republicans a mighty blow! Like a thunderclap, his words echo from sea to mighty sea!
/sarcasm
And, if he knows where to find “the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 [the "not dead" ones, anyway - fd] and all those who plan to do us harm”, he should share that information post haste with the appropriate authorities.
Or does he plan to keep it a secret unless and until he’s elected President?
He means we should actively START LOOKING FOR THEM, rather than ignoring them completely, you freaking moron.
If it was me, I’d start looking in Pakistan, not Iraq.
But that’s just me…
Nimrod Gently: The NEW Frank is going to ignore your unsolicited, and unwarranted epithet, to ask you a question: How in the h – e – double hockey sticks do you know what he actually meant?
Did you read the excerpt from the speech?
Did I read the excerpt from the speech?
Was there a link to the speech so you could see where he explained what he meant, if, indeed he did?
Was there any analysis by anyone that supports your belief?
Would this help?
redeploy
forces
focus
terrorists
You are beginning to sound like some of the other benighted souls on this Blog, who believe “liberal” to be synonymous with “omniscient”.
How in the h – e – double hockey sticks do you know what he actually meant?
Um…it was in plain English?
I dunno, maybe look in Pakistan, where the Taliban and al Qaeda are freely operating?
How about Saudi Arabia, the homeland of most of the 9/11 terrorists and known source of terrorist and radical Sunni funding IN IRAQ.
Wait, even better how about NOT funding radical Sunni groups that comprise much of the terrorist threat to our security in the absurd hope that you can take down Iran and Syria? I should probably shut up on this because that strategy worked so well with the mujahideen in Afghanistan.
Besides, I thought al Qaeda was in Darfur already and wants us there so they can open up a new front against the West. Wouldn’t that constitute “fighting them over there so we don’t have to here?”
Hey, does Darfur have any oil? No? Hmmmm, too bad.
This is interesting, Nimrod…
I didn’t notice the first time that TPM says that that was the entire statement.
So there you have it. Nothing about “looking for terrorists” at all.
What a relief!
Since it was you who brought it up in the first place I feel no great sense of loss.
Bill L. and Duros: I have an absolutely super idea!
Let’s try to find terrorists wherever they are…
We could call it the Global War on Terror.
What do you think?
I don’t think liberal is synonymous with omniscient. But it’s pretty clear that “conservative” is synonymous with “stupid”. You don’t see the liberals voting morons into the White House then cheerleading all his failures like only a stupid person would.
Oh, Rounds! Your clever riposte has cut me to the quick!
Rounds77, Jimmy Carter?
Seriously, you really are cheerleading failure after failure.
Frank, during that time when we weren’t hearing from you (how thankful we all were), someone provided a link to your web site when I had asked were you had gone. I almost choked on my coffee when I connected to it. It’s been hard for me to take you seriously since.
Shorter Farris:
“Quick, let’s change the subject! Hmm.. how about Darfur?? ANYone??”
Shorter Frank:
“No Democrat can understand how terrified we are of these scary terrorists, suicidal Jihadists who mean to do us harm!! WAKE UP, AMERICA!! THEY HAVE NO IDEA!! VOTE REPUBLICAN!!”
Hey. I want to get me one of those flack jackets Obama is talking about. Nice to know he’s such an expert on military matters.
OH NOES HE SPELT IT WRONG KILL HIM KILL HIM
Of course, when George says something genuinely stupid, you all think it’s cute. But then intellectual consistency is for people with short-term memories.
My favorite comment is when some would be comedian types, “Shorter Frank”, and what follows is longer than my original comment.
You’re a riot, Wellstone, you’re a riot!
Hey. I want to get me one of those flack jackets Obama is talking about. Nice to know he’s such an expert on military matters.
Yeah, yeah. I say potato, you say potatoe.
Nimrod Gently: The NEW Frank is going to ignore your unsolicited, and unwarranted epithet, to ask you a question: How in the h – e – double hockey sticks do you know what he actually meant?
It begins with a ‘c’ and ends with ‘ommon sense’.
Did you read the excerpt from the speech?
Probably.
Did I read the excerpt from the speech?
Probably not.
We could call it the Global War on Terror.
What do you think?
Bad idea. a war is betwen two sovereign nations, not against non-proper nouns, tangable or otherwise (War on Drugs being otherwise). How about, World Combat Against Terror? Also, didn’t you say that fighting terrorism everywhere in the world was stupid? Here’s a hint, the answer begins with ‘y’ and ends with ‘es’.
And if you care so goddamn much about fighting terrorism, then maybe we should divert some resources from the Iraq Fuckup that you cons love so dearly.
Frank’s real position on the occupation of Iraq: if the US army weren’t stretched thin by deployment the National Guard units would not have been sent to Iraq for extended deployment, and if the National Guard units weren’t in Iraq they’d be home washing their trucks, totally pissing Frank off.
How can you fault that?
I don’t understand the flak/flack thing. Did McCain see a written copy of the speech Obama gave? Did the news reports on the speech reference written copies of the speech? Are the words not pronouced the same?
In any case, when you consider the number of people McCain had covering him while on that stroll, you really can say he was wearing a flack jacket.
Duh.
The reason I wrote “Shorter FRank” is simply that the majority of the hundreds of stupid comments he’s written on Iraq and the GWOT can be boiled down to exactly what what I wrote.
Frank means “never had an original thought” in Urdu.
Who are you addressing, Wellstone, your dead namesake? He’s probably the only one who appreciated that exceptionally lame attempt at a jibe.
Dr.Pidgro: I doubt even you know what your comment means. Certainly, no one else does.
I’m addressing you, you pantload.
Wellstone: Did you learn in your “Ivy League” College to address people in the third person, and not the second?
You’re a riot, Wellstone, a riot!
I understood Dr. Pidgro’s post. Bascially he’s calling you a) selfish and b) misanthropic.
Nobody knows the answer to the question about how to proceed because this is a conflict unlike any other that the United States has been involved in. To label this as a Civil War is incorrect.
Well that explains why I didn’t understand him, Nimrod. I am neither.
BTW, I think you have him wrong, but I don’t care
McCain said “While Senator Obama’s two years in the U.S. Senate certainly entitle him to vote against funding our troops,…”
Nice. I see what he did there. Mischaracterization, deflect and project. The bulwarks of the GOP.
Dkel, what would you call it, then? Labeling it a Civil War is only pertinent within the borders of Iraq, not the “GWoT” , obviously.
I wouldn’t call it a civil war despite the conflict that is occurring within this countries borders. I am not sure exactly what to call it, but it is not a civil war in my book.
How about “clusterfuck”?
Operation FUBAR?
Why don’t we just call it a “dkelsmith” since it sounds like he wants to own whatever it is, was and will be.
How about this: “I want to help Iraq straighten out their differences, and kill bunches and bunches of terrorists, and the Democrats, particularly their anti – war left supporters, don’t”?
Z adura
I am not sure why the smartass comment about me was necessary simply because I have a differing opinion, but I am not goint to travel down that road. In my opinion, a civil war would entail an established recognized government fighting a “rebellion” of established forces from within. What we have in Iraq are many splinter groups. The “sectarian” violence that we talk about is not force on force battles in the street, it is evil deeds inflicted because of tribal and religous reasons. More often than not, the targets are not carrying weapons, they are sleeping women and children. These groups such as the 1920’s Brigade, Mahdi Army, Jaysh Al Mahdi Militia, and Ansar al Islam make war every day. To label someone as “Al Quaeda” or AQI is about as easy as naming a street gang in Los Angeles. People piece themselves together give themselves a name and terrorize other people. I have studied the works of David Galula in order to understand the dynamic I am facing, but yet, the methodology, if there is any to speak of, does not fit that of a focused guerilla war. Incidentally my belief that it is not a civil war comes from my current occupation as a Platoon Leader of a rifle platoon that patrols an area that is currently undergoing a SHi’ite push to exterminate or otherwise displace the Sunni’s. My AO is not as popular on CNN as Anbar, but the Southwest has its own share of dangers…specifically the Iranian EFP and weapons flow. But, who am I to have an opinion on what is going on here. Certainly you must be the expert. I’ll defer to your wisdom….you have my email address, so by all means email me an OPPLAN or an OPORDER and I will implement it with my platoon and I’m sure we will start to see some progress.
Dkel: The lack of respect for the military on the left has degenerated from a belief that only subhuman individuals would want to be in the military (a belief planted and nurtured by the left in the 60’s) to the point where the left doesn’t believe that trained soldiers are even capable of doing their jobs.
How else do you explain the rapidity with which Gen. Petraeus was being criticized within just weeks after his “Democratic majority Armed Services Committee” approval?
Frank,
I don’t believe that the left has a lack or respect for the military per se, but I believe that the military has become too civilianized. I consider myself a left-leaning moderate. What makes me a little bit more conservative in a lot of areas is my military background. The common belief the left has is that the military should not only be under the control of the civilian sector, but it should be monitored every step of the way at every level. I think we are more efficient when someone says, “Here is the end state that we are looking for.” At that point the military can make a plan, move out and draw fire. The Right tends to become too entrenched in civil-military relationships, when the bottom line is that the military and the civilian world are meant to be seperate though the military ultimately answers to the civilian population. The bottom line is that we have too many folks in business suits trying to get into the Operations side of the house. This confict cannot be solved by experts wearing shirts and ties. The only subject matter experts are at the Company Level and Below…namely Army and Marine Infantry. This is where the local leader engagements, project scopes, and contracts are awarded, as well as where the real cost of the war is paid.
How can you breathe through all the shit you talk?
Not Dkel, Frank.
Dkel: I think we’re talking about two different things.
I am saying that, of those on the left who disrespect the military, the nature of that disrespect has changed. I don’t believe the number of people on the left who disrespect the military has changed much.
Where I might also disagree with you, is in reference to the fact that the left feels that the military requires micro – management.
To say, “Here is the end state that we are looking for” is respectful. It shows you have full faith and confidence in the people to whom you have assigned the job.
The example I used of Gen. Petraeus, is a case of disrespect, analogous to calling your children every few minutes, the first night you leave them “home alone”.
Z Adura,
It is not so cut and dry, military doctrine and practice is quite tenuous, so simply put a civil war is a conflict between two opposing groups of citizens in the same recognized state. As there was one single solid state prior to the invasion, and now that state remains on the exterior, we do not have a civil war. Because the people who are doing the fighting, namely AIF, are not merely targeting the “recognized government”. Further, the interests that bring foreign fighters here, of which there are many, are not strictly political in base. This conflict is more closely related to an insurgency because there is a faction that is fighting to destabilize what little organization is here. The means to this destabilization is insurgent in nature because they cannot face us force on force. That is why they use guerilla tactics such as victim and command detonated devices. That is also why they use terror tactics. The tactics are guerilla in nature, but the rationale is not. In a straight out insurgency, the insurgent and the counter-insurgent are fighting for the backing of the people as well as a political goal. The many groups here have different goals, and believe it or not, the departure of occupation forces is not always at the top of all of the groups lists. Some groups look at extermination of other religous groups as a goal, or merely empowering their particular groups, some look at the restoration of the caliphate, and others still want the return of the Ba’athist movement. Because of this the conflict cannot be adequately described as an insurgency despite the fact that there are insurgent and counter-insurgent tactics being utilized presently. Aside from the “terror” targets, there are also cold and hot revolutionaries here. The cold revolutionaries are much more benign because they obviously don’t use force. Individuals such as Muqtada al Sadr has drifted back and forth between cold and hot on the outside, though I believe he has always been a violent threat. I remember I made the comment on these boards about 6 months ago that he needed to be eliminated, and Oliver stated that I was wrong because I would make Iraqi’s “hate” us even worse. Now we see that Al Sadr, (who openly engaged U.S. troops with the Mahdi Army) has gone from his “political” stance to saying that people should unite and engage coalition forces. So he has become a “hot”revolutionary once again. The bottom line is, Z Adura, that people are saying civil war because people other than American troops are being targeted. But as an Infantry Officer, a student of military and political science, and a leader of a Light Infantry Platoon, I feel that it is not so cut and dry. That is my opinion based on study and personal experience in some rough places. Whether that merits your objective consideration, or simply a scoff is totally up to you.
I gotta say I agree, D. This is like if the Methodists were fighting the Presbyterians.
And while I agree that the role of the military is, and should be, “this is the end result we want, make it happen,” I don’t really see that you’ve gotten that sort of respect, or even that sort of mission, from Washington.
I’m glad to see you posting here, man. We haven’t seen you in a while. Do you still need pencils and hershey bars?