Bush hasn't been POTUS for over a year now, these are Obama's orders and he hold the accountability for success or failure.

-spence

Yet for years they refused to state our intentions were short-term or even recognize the idea of a time line for withdrawal. We're not talking about a "date" mind you but even the idea.

I'd also note that the SOFA mentioned above was largely a product of the Iraqi government trying to get us to leave, not Bush itching to get the troops home.

Obama has been in charge for a year and has been negotiating Middle Eastern politics along the way. Though the security situation in Iraq had certainly improved by the time Bush left office, that's no guarantee that it would remain better, continue to get better or that the political situation, which is still quite fragile, could not fall apart.

So the voters think the Iraq war was a mistake, and it's off the table to challenge your opponents for supporting a failed foreign policy?

Just because it happened in the past?

This is a new concept, the idea that an elected official shouldn't be held accountable for their record in future elections. It certainly would make elections more exciting!

-spence

Lets not give credit to a President and Vice President that vehemently opposed the troop surge and remember that in his presidential campaign this had become part of his platform to be elected.

It is the fault of those that have voted for him under false pretenses.

Obama definitely remarked that he didn't believe the surge was working in mid 2007 after troops had been deployed, but violence had yet to diminish.

As we all know today, it's wasn't really the "Surge" that started the reduction in violence but the fact that Sunni's started taking their future more seriously led by the Anbar Awakening which began the year before. The extra troops certainly helped provide extra security though, and it's a combination of factors that have let to the conditions today.

The assertion that this was a part of his election platform doesn't really hold water. In September 2008, just two months before the election Obama stated that he thought the surge "worked" but also that it was costly.

Why would somebody change their stance just before a vote on such a critical issue? Perhaps Obama is less of an ideologue than some think...

-spence

If you'r referring to my chutzpah comment, I didn't say the chutzpah belonged to the voters. It belongs to Biden claiming that Iraq "could be one of the great achievements of" his administration. And "you're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government." Which is exactly what the Bush administration was derided for (by Biden, Obama, nearly the whole political left)--nation building--imposing democracy in the Middle-East where it was supposedly impossible. And --"I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences"--when he had wanted to partition Iraq into 3 states.

The Anbar awakening was fueled by our marine counter-insurgency which inspired even further Al-Qaeda stupid killings of Iraqis. The Iraqis in general and the Sunnis in particular, were "awakened" to the obvious fact that it was Al-Qaeda and the "insurgents" who were killing Iraqis and trying to destroy their elected government, and it was not Americans doing that killing and destruction. And the surge, in combination with embedding our troops with the locals, not in separate bivoucs, was absolutely essential to provide the confidence and security to allow that "awakening" to flourish.

You didn't get the memo?

Obama is the end all, be all - responsible for everything that is going on in the country - but only when that everything is dire and furthers the Conservative agenda. If something good follows through, well "Bush set the wheels in motion for that." They forget that 'Bush set the wheels in motion for the economy - right off a cliff' or that he 'set the wheels in motion to be in Iraq under false pretense for 7 years.'

I see.

So if it were not for Americans killing Iraqi's so that Iraqi's would respond by killing Iraqi's that the Iraqi's wouldn't have come to the conclusion that it wasn't worthwhile to continue to kill Iraqi's?

It's a good think we invaded in the first place, otherwise the Sunni's wouldn't have had the motivation to stop attacking us!

-spence

Another amazing display of evasive maneuvers--wiggling out of defending Biden, spinning to the Anbar Awakening, and winding into the invasion of Iraq. It's difficult to conclude anything when the topic keeps changing.

Perhaps you didn't get the memo circulating for the past eight years that Bush is the end all, be all of everything bad . . . oh . . . wait . . .you must have gotten the memo, or part of it--"the economy-right off a cliff" . . ."in Iraq under false pretense".

Actually, the economy was beginning its fall during the last year of Clinton's administration (the bursting of the dot.com bubble) and continued through the first year of Bush (of which Bush only served 7 or eight months--remember the delay due to Gore's challenge). Then Bush corrected the fall with tax cuts, etc., and the economy boomed again untill the banking failure that was inspired by, supposedly, a cluster of things that were initiated before Bush, and Bush again, initiated the corrective, the bank bailouts, taking the PR hit for doing so, and handed over (for Obama to inherit), an Iraq on its way to Biden's glowing appraisal, and the bank correction that "saved" the economy from depression, and Obama quickly acted by piling on to the correction an unnecessarily massive "Stimulus" and abandoned fixing the Social Security crisis by trying to add on to it a massively expensive public health care plan. And there's your economy being dragged toward the cliff again, and probably prolonged in the dumps longer than it normally would be.

Again, we get off topic.

And what is the opposite of a false pretense? A true pretense? Was Bush's pretense false because he knew WMDs didn't exist when he went searching for them. Or was his pretense a true pretense because he believed that there were weapons.

I think there are plenty of reasons to not agree with this. First, the writings of Bush's most trusted advisors his first term appeared to strongly believe in a long-term US military presence in the region.

Second, the construction of gigantic military bases and the $770M embassy, the largest in the world.

And third, a SOFA position that bargained for a long-term US presence with nearly complete autonomy. It was this position that the Iraqi's rejected and led to a time line for withdrawal.

I'd like to see a source for that poll as what I've read indicates otherwise.

As I've said, the Obama inherited this mess and for them to see it to a positive milestone is absolutely an accomplishment they should be taking credit for.

So Biden's viewpoint may have shifted based on the observations from the ground? Isn't that exactly why you claim time tables are stupid? Because they need to reflect reality?

Again, it's reinforcement that the Obama Administration is more pragmatic than people are giving them credit for. Hell, this "left wing radical" is scaling up US military actions in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen!

-spence

[QUOTE=spence;746876]And third, a SOFA position that bargained for a long-term US presence with nearly complete autonomy. It was this position that the Iraqi's rejected and led to a time line for withdrawal.

-SPENCE.

The "Iraqi's" were not some inimical force combatting the Bush administration. They were the governing body that was originally put in place by Bush to govern. They had to start from zero, to learn the democratic process (with the aid of American Iraqis, many of whom were picked by the Bush team) and to go through elections, I think it was three by the time of the SOFA agreement. (I love the irony of our liberal pols jubilantly celebrating the first election held in Bosnia AFTER TEN YEARS of our occupation--of course that was Clinton's war, so it was a good one. But three elections, or two, I don't recall now, in six years of the bad war in Iraq were . . . OK . . . but . . .) And, yes, Bush did envision a long stay in Iraq--we're still in Korea, Japan, Germany, etc., etc., but he did promise to abide by Iraq's will in the matter--democracy is what he wanted to establish in Iraq, and eventually in the Middle East, not American occupation. And it was the plan that Iraq, as a democratic state, had the final say. It was to be negotiable, the Iraqis still needed help, but the ultimate decision was to be theirs. So their rejection of US proposals and creation of a time-line was done hand in hand with Bush, not against him. Whether that time line stands, may depend on future conditions on the ground. The Iraqis felt, at the end of 2008, that conditions were good, so, probably for political reasons rather than security ones, they went for it. And Bush, maybe to wrap it up in time to hand Obama the gift--or the poison pill, said OK.

Actually, O Slippery One, you know very well that if Iraq fails, Obama and his lefties will point to Bush and say "I told you so." If it continues to go well, AS BUSH PLANNED IT, Obama will take, and the left will give (as OBiden is futuristically doing) him the credit. If it tanks, it's Bush's fault. Win, win for OBama here. And you know it.

The Sunni didn't "start taking their future more seriously" out of some mystical awakening. It would not have happened without the removal of Sadaam. Under him, the Sunni future was secure. There was no need for co-operation with the Shia or Kurds. They didn't just magically, benevolently awaken to the wonderful world of raprochement. They were forced into that reality by BUSH'S WAR, not by some casual, or religious, or brotherly, innocently walking in the park and struck by a vision awakening. They were forced into a choice of either eventual defeat and subjugation, or being a part of a winning coalition--AS ENVISIONED by the "stupid" one. It was a costly length of time for them to see the light, which might have happened sooner if our face to the war at home was strongly unified instead of divided. Our political infighting over the war, no doubt, gave them some hope to drive us out. But the "stupid" one did not relent. BUSH did that, not Obama/Biden. The surge solidified our effort. Bush's reason for invading Iraq was ultimately, and most importantly, to begin a fundamental change in the Middle East. To bring about, in the long term, a more stable, cooperative, democratically inclined region in place of one that inflicted terror on the rest of the world. And Iraq was the soft spot to begin. The first step, in what he acknowledged, would be a long struggle, has been taken. Perhaps, if we stay with it, and give Obama kudos for doing so up to this point, the mission will progress more rapidly than expected. If Obama continues staying the course, we may see a sooner than expected change for the better. Kudos to him, if he does. But for Biden to claim Iraq a success of his administration, when he, and Obama, and the Sunni, were all dragged into it, kicking, screaming, complaining, castigating, and condemning the effort, is silly.

Ok, you're right.

-specne

Actually, if Iraq tanks under this Administration it's a loss for AMERICA and Obama will ultimately take a lot the responsibility.

As for Bush's "planning" this was shoddy at best and corruptly incompetent at the worst. Bush didn't "plan" for Iraq to be a success, rather they "dreamed" it and hoped for the best.

-spence

The Anbar Awakening has little to do with Sunni's coming to peace with their Shiite and Kurdish brothers as envisioned by some neocon dream.

The Sunni's simply came to the realization that if they banded together to provide their own security against insurgents or al Qaeda (helping rather than fight US troops) they would have a better chance at survival.

They have now, in effect formed their own militia that the Iraqi government plans to disband as it's seen as a potential threat against Iraqi stability.

Ultimately, the same sectarian strife that existed long before Saddam is still present. Unfortunately, our mishandling of the early years of the war have done much to radicalize elements in Iraq making the long-term success of a stable US partner much more difficult.

And as you said, the plan was to fundamentally change the Middle East. How has it changed? Freedom has diminished in most of the Nations we had hoped to positively influence and many of our enemies are stronger as a result.

I wonder if this was ever ENVISIONED as a risk by the "enlightened" ones.

-spence

We probably have different reasons for considering it a loss if Iraq tanks. I don't see how Obama would take responsibility since he has promised to remove us from Iraq.

Bush wanted to create a democratic state. That has happened. It could have been less "messy" if we would have had a strongly united front. But there was no way that any amount of competence, planning, or dreaming could possibly have cleanly and easily achieved it. I have no doubt that he knew the task was immense, mistakes would be made, blood and treasure would be lost. The decision to do it had to be immensely wrenching. No doubt, he knew that he would be opposed, and accused of profiting and having his cronies profit. I don't know in which way he has profited, nor do I believe that he was willing to put this nation and its sons and daughters at such risk for some personal profit, nor profit for oil companies, or any other companies. Oil companies were making plenty of profit before the war. Iraq as a democracy wasn't going to change that. I believe he took his oath of office as an actual oath, not just a verbal formality. I think he saw a growing threat, of which 9/11 was just the tip, and a threat, that if allowed to unobstructedly fester, could be more formidable than it was at the time. It was, and is, a movement that thrives on peaceful negotiations and dialogue to cover its gains. Forcing their hand early, when their strength was still surmountable was, I believe, proper. Waiting and talking was not going to persuade them to go away. The ouster of the Talilban and Bin Ladin from Afghanistan, which is supposed to be the "good" war, already stirred the hornet's nest. It was no time to stay still, but to expand.

It goes, without saying, that all wars are a risk. But winning lessens the risks.

By the way, as Obama seems to be following much of FDR's "economic recovery" tactics, especialy with the rest of the "Stimulus" that he may be about to shower on those States that he might lose but still has a chance to retain, in order to temporarily juice their economy and create some non-sustainable jobs in order to save his re-election chances, remember that such tactics didn't end FDR's depression, but lengthened it, AND THE WAR was the needed boost to right the nation. Maybe it's a good time to really let loose those hounds.

It's important to note when evaluating the Roosevelt Presidency and drawing loose comparisons, that in the end, the Great Depression came to a close, and WWII was won.
The scope of those challenges was unfathomable. Interesting that people are still arguing the merits of FDR. There was no free-market solution to the Great Depression.

If the scope was unfathomable, then no strategy could be rational. Any plan to solve the unknown is merely throwing wet noodles on a wall and seeing which will stick. Hope that is not happening now. Hindsight may allow us to theorize what went wrong and what went right. The hindsight of many economists, certainly free-market economists, Austrian school economists, believe that allowing "the market" to correct itself would have been a quicker fix (perhaps more painful in the short run) than government intervention that tried to soften the blow.

Arguing merits does become a domain of historians. Analyzing a situation in its midst is fraught with the immediate, emotional and political arguments seeking to gain the turf. The calmer reflection of disinterested analysts is more useful. An example would be how Reagan was, during his presidency, viewed as a disaster, but now, historians place him somewhere in the the top ten.

The thinking was (and is) that launching simultaneous initiatives, even if money was wasted was necessary because to wait for a single or small group of possible solutions to have an effect would severely prolong the crisis if they did not work. The New Deal was fluid; initiatives came and went.

And yes, it was not until we started arming England did things really improve. What Roosevelt accomplished was not saving the economy, but saving the republic.

I agree that FDR did not save the economy. The contention is that he prolonged, even exacerbated the depression. He certainly didn't start it. Hoover did. And it wasn't Hoover's implementation of free market policies, but his Federal Government interventionist policies such as the Smoot-Hawley tariffs (which eventually contributed to the Worldwide depression and WWII), his Government manipulated high wage policies when profits and prices were falling, his increase of Government spending for subsidy and relief schemes, the Feds deflation of the money supply, and, though he lowered taxes on the poorest, he offered no incentives to the wealthy to invest in expansion or new business--all this compounded by him signing a congressional massive tax increase. The free market had survived several previous depressions, that were also influenced by Government tinkering, but not like the massive tinkering by Hoover and what was about to happen under FDR.

During his campaign, FDR blasted Hoover for spending and taxing too much, boosting the national debt, choking off trade (Smoot-Hawley), and putting millions on the dole--of reckless and extravagant spending, of "trying to center the control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible," and of presiding over "the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history." His VP candidate accused Hoover of "leading the country down the path of Socialism."

And FDR was right. He won in a landslide and his party platform called for a 25% reduction in Federal spending, a balanced Federal budget, a sound gold currency "to be preserved at all hazards," the removal of government from areas that belonged more appropriately to private enterprise and an end to Hoover's extravagant farm programs. What followed under FDR, instead, was a breaking of all those promises and an era of Hoover policies on steroids with some particularly destructive, anti-free-market regulations added by FDR. One of FDR's New Deal policy maker's. Rexford Tugwell said "we didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole new deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."

The point is that the simultaneous initiatives that you speak of were not only unecessary, but destructive. It was not a collapse of the free-market, but exactly those government initiatives that exacerbated and prolonged a recession/depression into the "Great Depression," those initiatives being: Central Bank mismanagement; trade crushing tariffs; incentive sapping taxes; mind-numbing controls on production and competition; senseless destruction of crops and cattle; coercive labor laws TO NAME A FEW. FDR's Treasury Secretary said in his private diary that their massive spending did not work, that they did not make good on their promises, that there was as much unemployment as when they started, and they had created an enormous debt to boot.

The Republic was not in danger due to the economic "crisis," but due to FDR's VP's assertion that the Hoover (and ultilmately the FDR) policies "were leading the country down the path of Socialism."

A lot of the above governmental initiatives, tinkering, et. al. certainly reflect actions of following administrations with a growing trend in that direction, and eerily echo some Obama policies.