Author
|
Topic: Pullout Demand Signals Final Bush Defeat in Iraq (Read 1077 times) |
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.24
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
  
|
 |
Pullout Demand Signals Final Bush Defeat in Iraq
« on: 2008-07-11 04:11:39 » |
 |
[Blunderov] Endgame time. Iran stands better.
http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=13120
Pullout Demand Signals Final Bush Defeat in Iraq
by Gareth Porter
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's demand for a timetable for complete US military withdrawal from Iraq, confirmed Tuesday by his national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie, has signaled the almost certain defeat of the George W. Bush administration's aim of establishing a long-term military presence in the country.
The official Iraqi demand for US withdrawal confirms what was becoming increasingly clear in recent months – that the Iraqi regime has decided to shed its military dependence on the United States.
The two strongly pro-Iranian Shiite factions supporting the regime in Baghdad, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) and al-Maliki's own Dawa Party, were under strong pressure from both Iran and their own Shiite population and from Shiite clerics, including Ayatollah Ali Sistani, to demand US withdrawal.
The statement by al-Rubaie came immediately after he had met with Sistani, thus confirming earlier reports that Sistani was opposed to any continuing US military presence.
The Bush administration has had doubts in the past about the loyalties of those two Shiite groups and of the SIIC's Badr Corps paramilitary organization, and it maneuvered in 2005 and early 2006 to try to weaken their grip on the interior ministry and the police.
By 2007, however, the administration hoped that it had forged a new level of cooperation with al-Maliki aimed at weakening their common enemy, Moqtada al-Sadr's anti-occupation Mahdi Army. SIIC leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim was invited to the White House in December 2006 and met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in November 2007.
The degree of cooperation with the al-Maliki regime against the Sadrists was so close that the Bush administration even accepted for a brief period in late 2007 the al-Maliki regime's argument that Iran was restraining the Mahdi Army by pressing Sadr to issue his August 2007 ceasefire order.
In November, Bush and al-Maliki agreed on a set of principles as the basis for negotiating agreements on stationing of US forces and bilateral cooperation, including a US guarantee of Iraq's security and territorial integrity. In February 2008, US and Iraqi military planners were already preparing for a US-British-Iraqi military operation later in the summer to squeeze the Sadrists out of Basra.
But after the US draft agreement of Mar. 7 was given to the Iraqi government, the attitude of the al-Maliki government toward the US military presence began to shift dramatically, just as Iran was playing a more overt role in brokering ceasefire agreements between the two warring Shiite factions.
The first indication was al-Maliki's refusal to go along with the Basra plan and his sudden decision to take over Basra immediately without US troops. Petraeus later said a company of US army troops was attached to some units as advisers "just really because we were having a problem figuring where was the front line."
That al-Maliki decision was followed by an Iranian political mediation of the intra-Shiite fighting in Basra, at the request of a delegation from the two pro-government parties. The result was that Sadr's forces gave up control of the city, even though they were far from having been defeated.
US military officials were privately disgruntled at that development, which effectively canceled the plan for a much bigger operation against the Sadrists during the summer. Weeks later, a US "defense official" would tell the New York Times, "We may have wasted an opportunity in Basra to kill those that needed to be killed."
In another sign of the shifting Iraqi position away from Washington, in early May, al-Maliki refused to cooperate with a Cheney-Petraeus scheme to embarrass Iran by having the Iraqi government publicly accuse it of arming anti-government Shiites in the South. The prime minister angered US officials by naming a committee to investigate US charges.
Even worse for the Bush administration, a delegation of Shiite officials to Tehran that was supposed to confront Iran over the arms issue instead returned with a new Iranian strategy for dealing with Sadr, according to Alissa J. Rubin of the New York Times: reach a negotiated settlement with him.
The al-Maliki regime began to apply the new Iranian strategy immediately. On May 10, al-Maliki and Sadr reached an accord on Sadr City, where pitched battles were being fought between US troops and the Sadrists.
The new accord prevented a major US escalation of violence against the Mahdi Army stronghold and ended heavy US bombing there. Seven US battalions had been poised to assault Sadr City with tanks and armored cars in a battle expected to last several weeks.
Under the new pact, Sadr allowed Iraqi troops to patrol in his stronghold, in return for the government's agreement not to arrest any Sadrist troops unless they were found with "medium and heavy weaponry".
The new determination to keep US forces out of the intra-Shiite conflict was accompanied by a new tough line in the negotiations with the Bush administration on status of forces and cooperation agreements. In a May 21 briefing for Senate staff, Bush administration officials said Iraq was now demanding "significant changes to the form of the agreements".
The al-Maliki regime was rejecting the US demand for access to bases with no time limit as well as for complete freedom to use them without consultation with the Iraqi government, as well as its demand for immunity for its troops and contractors. The Iraqis were asserting that these demands violated Iraqi sovereignty. By early June, Iraqi officials were openly questioning for the first time whether Iraq needs a US military presence at all.
The unexpected Iraqi resistance to the US demands reflected the underlying influence of Iran on the al-Maliki government as well as Sadr's recognition that he could achieve his goal of liberating Iraq from US occupation through political-diplomatic means rather than through military pressures.
Iran put very strong pressure on Iraq to reject the agreement, as soon as it saw the initial US draft. It could cite the fact that the draft would allow the United States to use Iraqi bases to attack Iran, which was known to be a red line in Iran-Iraq relations.
The Iranians could argue that an Iraqi Shiite regime could not depend on the United States, which was committed to a strategy of alliance with Sunni regimes in the region against the Shiite regimes.
Iran was able to exploit a deep vein of Iraqi Shiite suspicion that the US might still try to overthrow the Shiite regime, using former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and some figures in the Iraqi Army. When the US draft dropped an earlier US commitment to defend Iraq against external aggression and pledged only to "consult" in the event of an external threat, Iran certainly exploited the opening to push al-Maliki to reject the agreement.
The use of military bases in Iraq to project US power into the region to carry out regime change in Iran and elsewhere had been an essential part of the neoconservative plan for invading Iraq from the beginning.
The Bush administration raised the objective of a long-term military presence in Iraq based on the "Korea model" last year at the height of the US celebration of the pacification of the Sunni stronghold of Anbar province, which it viewed as sealing its victory in the war.
But the Iraqi demand for withdrawal makes it clear that the Bush administration was not really in control of events in Iraq, and that Shiite political opposition and Iranian diplomacy could trump US military power.
(Inter Press Service)
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/fearfactory/bitethehandthatbleeds.html
"Bite The Hand That Bleeds"
I watch you tap the blood in my vein
My heart you feed on to keep you sustained
A parasite that leaves me cold and drained
I'm in shock and you leave me paralyzed
And the saddest part I realize
The absence of truth behind your eyes
I feel you tapping my soul from my vein
I feel you tapping again on my vein
I feel my life slipping away
One more drop of blood I spill
One more drop you take
One more drop and I will spite
And bite the hand that bleeds...
|
|
|
|
|
Fritz
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 7.85
Rate Fritz
|
|
Re:Pullout Demand Signals Final Bush Defeat in Iraq
« Reply #1 on: 2008-07-11 12:15:14 » |
|
Quote:[Blunderrov]One more drop of blood I spill
One more drop you take
One more drop and I will spite
And bite the hand that bleeds... |
Nice article , (I had missed that story).... and bang on Lyric ....
Given even in joking that GW would say the quote below, makes me suspect that that your posted Lyric says it all. We will have to see how the move to impeachment hearing goes. 
Cheers
Fritz
George Bush: "Goodbye From the World's Biggest Polluter"
Huffington Post
Author: A. Siegel
Date: July 10, 2008 | 03:25 PM (EST)
George W. Bush ended his time at the G8 summit, the last that he will attend as U.S. presidency, with the following statement.
Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter.
According to the Telegraph reporting,
He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock.
It is impressive that, after all these years of idiocy and bad policy making, that George W Bush is able to shock me as well.
And, it wasn't only national leaders who were in shock:
One official who witnessed the extraordinary scene said afterwards: "Everyone was very surprised that he was making a joke about America's record on pollution."
Amusingly, in a very sad way, America has lost its lead as "the world's biggest polluter" under George's tenure, yet another way that America is no longer #1. In this case, it is not because the United States has reduced its pollution but because the booming Chinese economy is now spewing out even more GHGs than the overly polluting American economy.
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.43
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Pullout Demand Signals Final Bush Defeat in Iraq
« Reply #2 on: 2008-07-11 12:45:39 » |
|
Given the Democrat's record of dancing to the Neocon tune, including the latest total betrayal and roll-over-and-play-dead by the Democrats along with their flip flopper in chief on the 4th Amendment, FISA and the blatant felonies perpetrated by the Whitehouse and Telcos, I would not hold my breath. The American system is apparently broken beyond repair. Besides, Bush just needs to issue a pardon to all his henchmen and resign 30 minutes before his term is ended, enough time for Cheney to be sworn in and issue a general pardon to Bush and they will likely have sufficient color of law to avoid prosecution - as long as they stay in the USA and perhaps in those countries sufficiently subservient to the USA to ignore treaties and International law. Don't forget that the "Bomb the Hague" law, passed in 1996, remains on the books. It must be a constant source of reassurance to our war criminals of both parties.
Kindest Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.24
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Pullout Demand Signals Final Bush Defeat in Iraq
« Reply #3 on: 2008-07-21 02:50:39 » |
|
[Blunderov]"Red Wigglers, Red Wigglers the Cadillac of worms!"*
thinkprogress.org
McCain camp reacts to Maliki’s call for withdrawal: Voters don’t care what Iraqi leaders say.»
In response to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s clear statement in support of a 16-month redeployment from Iraq, a senior McCain official tells Marc Ambinder “[V]oters care about [the] military, not about Iraqi leaders.” A “prominent Republican strategist” who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said more candidly, “We’re f*cked.” Recall, this is what McCain said in 2004:
QUESTION: Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it’s a hypothetical, but it’s at least possible.
McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it’s obvious that we would have to leave because — if it was an elected government of Iraq — and we’ve been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don’t see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.
*[Bl.] From the ancient TV show WKRP in Cincinatti. (Note to self. Must get out more.)
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.24
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Pullout Demand Signals Final Bush Defeat in Iraq
« Reply #4 on: 2008-08-11 03:34:35 » |
|
[Blunderov] The apparently simple-minded Iraqis simply don't get that all this prating about Iraq's so called "sovereignty" is for public consumption only.
(The USA seems to consider itself as having earned permanent access to all of the material and strategic resources of Iraq by right of conquest. The inhabitants seem to think otherwise.)
http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/blinking-idiot
"What's here? the portrait of a blinking idiot,
Presenting me a schedule! I will read it.
How much unlike art thou to Portia!
How much unlike my hopes and my deservings!
"Who chooseth me shall have as much as he deserves"!
Did I deserve no more than a fool's head?
Is that my prize? Are my deserts no better?"
The Merchant Of Venice Act 2, scene 9, 54–62
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/10/10918/
Published on Sunday, August 10, 2008 by Reuters
Iraq Demands ‘Very Clear’ US Troop Timeline
by Mohammed Abbas
BAGHDAD - The United States must provide a “very clear timeline” to withdraw its troops from Iraq as part of an agreement allowing them to stay beyond this year, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said on Sunday.
It was the strongest public assertion yet that Iraq is demanding a timeline. U.S. President George W. Bush has long resisted setting a firm schedule for pulling troops out of Iraq, although last month the White House began speaking of a general “time horizon” and “aspirational goals” to withdraw.
Iraq’s leaders have become more confident of their ability to provide security on their own as the country has become safer. But bombings, which killed at least nine people on Sunday, were a reminder that it is still a violent place.
In an interview with Reuters, Zebari said the agreement, including the timeline, was “very close” and would probably be presented to the Iraqi parliament in early September.
Asked if Iraq would accept a document that did not include dates for a withdrawal, Zebari said: “No, no. Definitely there has to be a very clear timeline.”
“The talks are still ongoing. There’s been a great deal of progress. The deal is very close. It is about to be closed,” Zebari said of the agreement, which will replace a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the U.S. presence, which expires at the end of this year.
A sticking point in the negotiations is Washington’s wish that its troops be immune from Iraqi law. In July, Iraq’s deputy speaker of parliament told Reuters lawmakers would likely veto any a deal if this condition were granted.
Other hurdles include the power of the U.S. military to detain Iraqi citizens, and their authority to conduct military operations, Zebari said.
“Our negotiators have really found compromises on all these issues.”
ASSERTIVE STANCE
He would not be drawn on the precise dates that Iraqi negotiators are seeking for withdrawal, saying the document was not yet final. Iraqi officials have said they would like to see all combat troops out by October 2010.
An agreement that included that date would require the Bush administration effectively to accept a timeline almost identical to the one proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who opposed the 2003 invasion.
“You may hear many dates, but I caution you not to take any of these dates until you get the final document,” Zebari said.
Iraq has taken an increasingly assertive stance in negotiations with the United States after Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s forces scored military victories against militia groups this year, giving the government a confidence boost.
The high price of oil means the Iraqi treasury has more money for reconstruction projects than it can figure out how to spend, and violence is at a four-year low.
Still, U.S. commanders say they worry that a hasty withdrawal could allow violence to resume.
A suicide bomber blew up a bomb-laden minibus in the town of Khanaqin north of Baghdad, killing three people and wounding at least 20 on Sunday. Five roadside bomb attacks in Baghdad on Sunday killed a total of six people and wounded at least 26.
Iraqi politics have been paralysed by a dispute over the northern city of Kirkuk, which Kurds claim as the capital of their autonomous homeland. The issues threatens to stoke ethnic tensions between the city’s Kurds, Arabs and ethnic Turkmen.
That quarrel scuppered a law needed to allow provincial elections across the country, despite intensive lobbying by the United States and United Nations to reach a deal.
(Editing by Peter Graff and Mary Gabriel)
© 2008 Reuters
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.24
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Pullout Demand Signals Final Bush Defeat in Iraq
« Reply #5 on: 2008-08-25 17:59:55 » |
|
[Blunderov] Containing, for the moment, my glee at these developments (sovereignty -aka "freedom"- is messy?  ) I suppose it could be argued that this brouhaha is a good example of that very particular weakness of democracy; the difficulty of adhering to anything much more extended than short to medium term projects before a capricious public becomes disenchanted. Of course the readily available wisdom of Sun Tzu has long decreed that one should refrain from protracted wars, especially those that are far from home. In the light of this very obvious common sense, declaring wars that have no foreseeable ending seems an incredibly unsmart option for a modern day democracy to adopt but of course the other tine of this fork is that those politicians who play this game have no need to fear accountability because they they will be long gone by the time the bills hit. Double whammy democracy - and this is the best we can do? Hmmm.
Maliki, and Iran, seem to have judged their moment quite well I think. 3000 years of experience can do that for a culture...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080825/wl_mcclatchy/3027470
Iraq, U.S. clash over timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal
By Leila Fadel, McClatchy Newspapers
2 hours, 1 minute ago
BAGHDAD — Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki said Monday there would be no security agreement between the United States and Iraq without an unconditional timetable for withdrawal— a direct challenge to the Bush administration, which insists that the timing for troop departure would be based on conditions on the ground.
"No pact or an agreement should be set without being based on full sovereignty, national common interests, and no foreign soldier should remain on Iraqi land, and there should be a specific deadline and it should not be open," Maliki told a meeting of tribal Sheikhs in Baghdad .
Maliki said that the United States and Iraq had agreed that all foreign troops would be off Iraqi soil by the end of 2011. "There is an agreement actually reached, reached between the two parties on a fixed date, which is the end of 2011, to end any foreign presence on Iraqi soil," Maliki said.
But the White House disputed Maliki's statement and made clear the two countries are still at odds over the terms of a U.S. withdrawal.
"Any decisions on troops will be based on conditions on the ground in Iraq ," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said in Crawford, Tex. , where President Bush is vacationing. "That has always been our position. It continues to be our position."
Fratto denied Maliki's assertion that an agreement has been reached mandating that all foreign forces be out of Iraq by the end of 2011.
"An agreement has not been signed," he said. "There is no agreement until there's an agreement signed. There are discussions that continue in Baghdad ."
Maliki also said the dispute has not been resolved over immunity for U.S. troops and contractors when they are off their bases. He said this was one of the most divisive issues under negotiation.
"We can't neglect our sons by giving an open immunity for anyone whether he is Iraqi or a foreigner," he said
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made a surprise visit to Baghdad last week in an effort to push the process forward. Her long meeting with Maliki ended with no concrete solution, his advisor told McClatchy .
Jonathan S. Landay contributed from Washington .
|
|
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 5.96
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Pullout Demand Signals Final Bush Defeat in Iraq
« Reply #6 on: 2008-08-26 04:24:59 » |
|
For someone who supposedly has weak foreign policy credentials (according to abundant US neo-con/"mainstream"-media accounts) it seems a bit strange how all the players seem to be converging on Obama's timeline for withdrawal even as McCain and the US administration ceaselessly and publicly damn him for proposing such reasonable things in the first place.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.24
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Pullout Demand Signals Final Bush Defeat in Iraq
« Reply #7 on: 2008-08-26 07:15:33 » |
|
(Blunderov) Dear Mo, I do not think America will ever vote a black man into the Presidency. I do not think that America will ever vote a white woman into the presidency either.
Standby for POTUS John Mc Cain!
Best Regards
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.43
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Pullout Demand Signals Final Bush Defeat in Iraq
« Reply #8 on: 2008-08-26 20:35:32 » |
|
Dear Blunderov,
I think you missed the bit where Obama, who we know lost his measured stance, become pro-AIPEC, joined the bomb Iran chorus and most recently decided to appoint a pro-war, Bush enabling, self-proclaimed "Zionist" as his Vice President elect.
The idea that anyone who is antiwar or opposed to the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Palestinians could vote for this pair of clowns without gagging is ludicrous. This is nothing to do with their skin color, only the stench of death hovering around them. The one thing that Obama had going for him is that he seemed perhaps less embedded than the Clinton creature, but I think that their strategy is now to woo unhappy Republicans on the assumption that historical Democrats will swallow the hypocrisy and vote for somebody less worse than McSame. I think this strategy is going to fail. As it deserves to. I think that the turnout will be small, and the people under 50 not in thrall to Faux TV are not going to bother to vote on the basis that they are not represented anyway, no matter who they vote for. At this point there is no anti-war, never mind liberal (thinking for themselves) representation, in the poor remnants of the USA.
All that is left is to vote for the least revolting of what is on offer, maybe the Greens given that there doesn't seem to be a Crazy Loony party - or perhaps your previous suggestion of McPain in order to speed the collapse, in the hope that something better happens next time around. If there is a next time around.
Kindest Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Fritz
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 7.85
Rate Fritz
|
|
Re:Pullout Demand Signals Final Bush Defeat in Iraq
« Reply #9 on: 2008-08-26 23:05:15 » |
|
Quote:| [Blunderov]Standby for POTUS John Mc Cain! |
Had too google POTUS, didn't know the anagram, and found this for the really addicted this fall.
Cheers
Fritz
Source: Wikipedia POTUS
P.O.T.U.S `08, is a satellite radio channel launched on 2007-09-24[1]. A preview of the channel started in June 2007. P.O.T.U.S `08 on XM Channel 130 is a joint venture between XM Radio and public radio/television service C-SPAN, and is intended as a public service. It will not carry commercial advertising, and will also not require an XM subscription to be heard[2].
P.O.T.U.S (President Of The United States) `08 will provide updates on the United States 2008 presidential election, as well as equal coverage for all candidates. It will feature news, interviews, speeches, complete debates, polls, fundraising status, and live call-in shows. Bloggers and podcasters will also be providing content for the channel. In addition to current election events, P.O.T.U.S `08 will use C-SPAN's archive to air archival audio of historic moments from past campaigns.
The channel is technically a temporary one, as it will cease operations after the Presidential election in November 2008[2].
[edit] Partial list of events covered by P.O.T.U.S. `08
* 2007-06-28 - All American Presidential Forums on PBS
* 2007-07-23 - CNN/YouTube debate (Democratic candidates)
* 2007-08-05 - Presidential debates hosted by ABC News (Republican candidates)
* 2007-08-07 - AFL-CIO’s town hall forum for Democratic candidates in Chicago
* 2007-08-09 - Presidential debates hosted by Logo focusing on LGBT issues (Democratic canaidates)
* 2007-08-19 - Presidential debates hosted by ABC News (Democratic candidates)
* 2007-09-27 - All American Presidential Forums on PBS (Republican candidates)
* 2007-11-28 - CNN/YouTube debate (Republican candidates)
* 2008-01-21 - The Congressional Black Caucus debate hosted by CNN (Democratic candidates)
.
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 5.96
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Pullout Demand Signals Final Bush Defeat in Iraq
« Reply #10 on: 2008-08-27 13:01:28 » |
|
Quote from: Blunderov on 2008-08-26 07:15:33
(Blunderov) Dear Mo, I do not think America will ever vote a black man into the Presidency. I do not think that America will ever vote a white woman into the presidency either.
Standby for POTUS John Mc Cain!
Best Regards
|
Of course politics is a bit too unpredictable to be betting on, however I think Obama's chances are better than the current "dead heat" the polls show. Basically most of the polls simplify it into a two person race. The real ballot, however, will have many more choices.
I'll see if I can hunt it down, but about a month ago I saw a better poll presenting voters with a more complete presidential ballot. Obama's numbers remained about the same, while McCain's numbers dropped about 5-7 percentage points -- basically McCain loses far more voters to third party and independent candidates. Furthermore, even with the simpified "dead heat" that we see in the current polls, all the recent breakdowns of electoral college votes I've seen show Obama with a significant lead.
Of course I'm often surprised by the Democratic Party's ability to lose races that should have been easy, but barring any major fuckups I think its likely to be POTUS Barack Obama.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 5.96
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Pullout Demand Signals Final Bush Defeat in Iraq
« Reply #11 on: 2008-08-28 19:21:48 » |
|
In the interest of an on-topic point: as we hear about new plans for the US to turn over the Anbar province to the Iraqis, I suspect that this breakthrough had a lot to do with Obama on the US political side, and al-Maliki on the Iraqi side, cooperatively and publicly matching each others' visions. This finally forced the administration's otherwise incompetant hand at the threat of appearing uncomfortably crosswise with their own rhetoric for democracy. Whether or not he wins (which I think he will) I don't think we would have seen this kind political progress in Iraq without Obama's candidacy in the mix.
Since the rest of this has wandered slightly off-topic into predicting the presidential race, I encourage any replies to the following be made here: http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=69;action=display;threadid=42297;start=0;boardseen=1
full article: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/obama_getting_convention_bounc.php
excerpt:
Quote:[bold]Obama Getting Convention Bounce In Gallup -- And It May Just Be Beginning[/bold]
By Eric Kleefeld - August 28, 2008, 3:15PM
Barack Obama might just might be getting a convention bounce, if today's Gallup tracking poll is to be believed.
The new numbers: Obama 48%, McCain 42%, outside the ±2% margin of error. Just two days ago, Gallup had McCain up 46%-44%. |
This polling was concluded the day after Hillary's acceptance speech, so this bounce includes whatever influence she had. It does not reflect events since, and so for the full convention effect we will need to check out the numbers by Labor Day or so. Even though I saw a couple of pre-convention polls that had McCain pulling ahead in the popular vote, I have yet to see any polling yet giving McCain any projected advantage in the electoral college. So far, even on the worst days Obama has held an EC advantage.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
|
Logged
