Posted on 07/28/2008 10:54:08 AM PDT by flyfree
Answer: A hell of a lot better than it would have if the left had had its way last year, although naturally he’s prohibited from saying so. But couple his response to the question with his point that withdrawal has to be conditions-based and it’s clear what he thinks the consequences of a significant U.S. drawdown in the near term would be. Good thing Barack Obama no longer favors one.
He says he’ll have further recommendations for withdrawal — again, conditions permitting — next month, which could be quite the monkey wrench in the two parties’ convention messages, needless to say. My hunch is that as the Iraq debate gets more nuanced with “time horizons” versus “timetables” and McCain and Obama increasingly borrowing elements of each other’s rhetoric, most voters will simply shrug off whatever Petraeus has to say. If I’m wrong, though, then which way will it break if the world’s most credible opponent of timetables decides they can now comfortably lose another two brigades, say? Superficially, any withdrawal helps Obama, but since one of Maverick’s biggest liabilities is the “100 years” comment, having an authority and de facto ally like Petraeus bless a modest drawdown is something McCain should be able to coopt to reassure the public that he’s not interested in occupation for the sake of occupation.
Speaking of generals opposed to hasty withdrawal, Tom Maguire asks a good question: Where is Gen. Zinni these days? The ranks of military authorities touted by doves have been thin ever since Gen. Batiste came around on the surge. Who’s left at this point besides Wes Clark?
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
"Until we kick those muslim jihadist asses back to Tehran!"
“They lose. We Win”
(Thank God for Ronald Reagan.
Different approaches for different audiences :)
I often ask people who think we should be out of Iraq why they don’t worry about the troops left in Germany or Korea first but somehow they don’t ever want to talk about them?
“This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.” The Hollow Men T.S. Eliot.
In victory, liberal. Look it up it’s still in the dictionary.
Only in the Conservative ones..
and Japan...and Turkey...and England...
it’s simply not on the lunatic liberal agenda.
That a crew of six died in a B-52 crash in Guam recently escapes them completely, so it’s not at all about the troops dying.
Simply put, they want a one world atheistic govt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.