Iraq War

These Republicans love sinking to new lows. During a debate, Ed Tinsley, a Republican running for NM-2 accused his Democratic rival of wanting to "cut the throats" of our troops. You can view his statement here, which was met with boos by the audience.

Keith Olbermann also caught this outrageous statement and gave Mr. Tinsley the award for worse person in the world last night:

The people in Georgia wonder why the U.S. and NATO isn't there helping them fight Russia:

As a Russian jet bombed fields around his village, Djimali Avago, a Georgian farmer, asked me: “Why won’t America and Nato help us? If they won’t help us now, why did we help them in Iraq?”

A similar sense of betrayal coursed through the conversations of many Georgians here yesterday as their troops retreated under shellfire and the Russian Army pressed forward to take full control of South Ossetia.

If the U.S. gets involved militarily in this conflict, it means we are at war with Russia. If we go to war with Russia, we can expect that war to include us against China. Is this something our stretched out military can really handle now?

John McCain yesterday:

Earlier Thursday, McCain, who has contended that Obama is willing to lose in Iraq to win the election, said his rival would forfeit the war as part of an agenda that also promotes big government and high taxes.

Doesn't McCain read a newspaper? Iraq and the U.S. is close to a deal that is basically what Obama laid out. So I guess the White House is willing to "forfeit" the war also?

Looks like Iraq is ready for us to get the hell out of dodge Iraq:

The proposed agreement calls for Americans to hand over parts of Baghdad's Green Zone — where the U.S. Embassy is located — to the Iraqis by the end of 2008. It would also remove U.S. forces from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, according to the two senior officials, both close to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and familiar with the negotiations.

The officials, who spoke separately on condition of anonymity because the talks are ongoing, said all U.S. combat troops would leave Iraq by October 2010, with the remaining support personnel gone "around 2013." The schedule could be amended if both sides agree — a face-saving escape clause that would extend the presence of U.S. forces if security conditions warrant it.

Again it looks like Obama was correct all along and Bush and McCain were - well WRONG! I know that's a real shocker (yeah right).

That's what we should be seeing in the news, but we aren't. Instead the media is silent on the Republicans filibustering the funding bill for our troops, all because they want to give the oil companies what they want.

Think of every time there was a delay by Democrats in passing the war funding bills. We aren't talking filibusters, just delays. The Republicans were all over the media saying how Democrats are hurting and killing our troops. Of course when the Republicans go a step further and filibuster such bills, there is the typical media silence.

Iraq war architect Richard Perle is now trying to get in on the Kurdish oil deal, despite objections from the administration. Yup - the people who brought us the death and carnage known as the Iraq War now seek to profit from it.

52 people killed in suicide bombings in Iraq. Hopefully this isn't a sign of things turning worse again.

That's what he keeps saying, yet CBS was kind enough to leave out a major gaff he made in an interview. Luckily the tape surfaced, which again proves McCain has no idea what has happened in the Middle East:

An Iraqi spokesman reiterates the plan to have our troops out of Iraq in 2010:

Will the Republicans finally accept this as the will of the Iraqi people? It doesn't look like it. McCain is denouncing the plan and saying he knows "what the Iraqi people wantt". This means that under Republican rule, we do not accept the sovereignty of Iraq and are now an occupying force.

Not for Obama, but for a plan Obama laid out that the right has tried to shoot down time and time again:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a German magazine he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months.

In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.

"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

I wonder what the White House spin on this will be. Will they try to write it off as another "translation error", or will they secretly go into "overthrow Maliki" mode?

The Mittster is now claiming John McCain came up with the whole surge.

So why do these Republicans show such little respect for David Petraeus, and why don't the wingnuts who were pushing for Petraeus to run for President come out in his defense? This shows the lack of respect for our military from the right.

I keep hearing McCain talk about the surge like it was "his plan". I thought it was the "Petraeus plan"? Isn't this rather insulting to our top General in Iraq? If Iraq was going down the crapper right now, would McCain be referring to it as the Petraeus plan again?

That's what the Republicans love to say about Iraq. Here's a fact - 28 Iraqi army recruits were killed by a suicide bomber.

Or as the educated people might call it, a time table:

Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country is now proposing an interim deal with the United States on the presence of American troops instead of a more formal agreement — and wants to include a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal.

Some type of agreement is needed to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires at year's end. But many Iraqi lawmakers had criticized the government's attempt to negotiate a formal status of forces agreement, worried that U.S. demands would threaten the country's sovereignty.

So will the Republicans bash Iraq's government as terrorist appeasers? Or will we ignore this request, thus negating any sovereignty of the nation? It should be interesting to hear the talking points this generates.

But we can sure pay out another $162 billion to fund wars, including the one based upon nothing but lies.

I guess Bush was right when he said we "aren't in the job of nation building". Correct Mr. President - you are in the job of nation destroying!