|
Post by jgaffney on Dec 7, 2008 18:08:30 GMT -5
I just caught parts of it this morning, but Tom Brokaw was interviewing the President-elect. The part that I heard was where Obama was discussing how his policy would follow his campaign promises to withdraw from Iraq as quickly as possible. Obama described how his policies would fight the War on Terror "more effectively." Given the success of the Bush Surge in Iraq, a policy that Obama opposed, I'm curious how the new President will be "more effective" in his waging of this war. Perhaps some of the more enlightened Obama supporters could enlighten me here. While you're at it, perhaps you can finally answer my repeated question of your understanding of the phrase, "dire consequences," as it was used in the several UN Security Council resolutions calling for Saddam to disarm, and prove that he had done so.
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Dec 10, 2008 12:49:08 GMT -5
Boy, the silence in here is deafening.
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Dec 10, 2008 13:00:45 GMT -5
Well, for one, if you think the war in Iraq is the War on Terror you're sadly mistaken.
The real War on Terror lies in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Obama's plan is to withdraw troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan until we've built up enough of a force that we can go after the terrorists in their caves. Something Bush was afraid to do.
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Dec 10, 2008 13:52:13 GMT -5
Riiighhht. I guess if you can totally ignore the fact that Zarqawi and Zawahiri told us, in their own writings, that they saw the war in Iraq as the central front in the War on Terror, you can believe that The Obama will be "more effective" in his pursuit of the terrorists.
Still no answer on the definition of "dire consequences," though.
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Dec 10, 2008 13:54:18 GMT -5
Yep, it was a blatant ploy to keep us over there which you (and Bush) bought into hook, line, and sinker.
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Dec 10, 2008 15:12:44 GMT -5
Saunterelle, please tell me what would have happened if we had not fallen for this "blatant ploy"? What do you think would have happened in Iraq if we had left in 2004? What do you think the status of Iraq, vis a vis the terrorists, would be today if we had left Saddam in power when the whole world thought he had WMDs?
|
|