|
Posted on 02/25/2009 4:00:48 PM PST by tomnbeverly
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen. John McCain said Wednesday that security gains in Iraq could be lost if the new administration pulls troops out too quickly, but he didn't dismiss the feasibility of President Barack Obama's 19-month timetable. The administration was finishing details this week on a plan that would withdraw most of the nation's 142,000 troops in Iraq by August 2010. The proposal would leave as many as 50,000 troops behind to advise and train Iraqi security forces and to protect U.S. interests. McCain, who lost the presidency to Obama last year, suggested that the timeline — three months longer than Obama's campaign pledge but shorter than some military officials have advised — was an attempt to find middle ground. He warned that while the plan might appease Americans wary of war, the public should keep in mind that casualties could continue. "Let's also be realistic — advisers in any conflict are in harms' way," McCain told an audience at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. House Republican Leader John Boehner made similar comments to reporters on Wednesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
John Kerry was right. He was just talking about the wrong President.
With the white flag about to be raised in the War on Terror, who wants to be the last soldier to die in a losing cause?
He should have thought of that before supporting this socialist president. Of course he would lose too much power I’d guess...scumbag that he is. Great war hero, but horrible and way too liberal of a Senator...hope your gone soon.
Hey Sen McLame. If you wanted someone to listen to your opinions, you should’ve put forth a little effort to win the election and spared the Country from the Communist Dictator.
McCain is a bumbling old fool...rapidly becoming a RINO Jimmy Carter. He should retire to a rocking chair on his front porch...that’s all he’s qualified for.
Isn't that obie's plan, to lose the gains?
Just like Gitmo. He keeps a stupid promise with no regard to the consequences. This traitorous piece of dog filth is going to get a lot of people killed.
“War on Terror” is a poor phrase.
Why don’t we call them what they are, Jihadists?
(That’s what they call themselves.)
Any psychopath with a political motive can be a terrorist, but it takes a committed Muslim to be a Jihadist.
“War on Terror” can mean anything, like “War on Poverty,” “War on Drugs” etc.
Consequences, exactly.... No words can bring back the dead too which you are complicit in their demise.
Oh, come on John. Weren’t you the one who told us that we need not fear an Obama presidency.
Maybe you shudda fought a little harder for the job. And yes, Rev. Wright was and IS an issue.
If you do declare war on Jihaidsts... CAIR will sick the ACLU on you and you will have to surrender your war.
Yes, PC could be the ultimate death of us all.
Muslims should be asked one simple question. “ Would you like to see Shariah Law implemented in ______ (insert name of host western/non-muslim country)?”
Iraq, Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, etc. They’re all lining up to follow Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinians and the Sudanese into ‘Slammie Fundie Terror Anarchy, hayna? Or no?
Iraq is an Arab, Muslim state. There will be 'gains' there only as long as the money keeps flowing to their corrupt government. Iraq is not a failed state because of their 'form of government' ... it is a failed state because of the character of the people who live there. It was a mistake to go there. They will only be our 'friends' as long as the money train rides. They are Muslims ... they are Arabs ... they are 65 or 70 percent illiterate. Fragile 'gains' is a joke.
How long 0? 100 years? Take that Code Pink & Sea Hag Shehan.
|
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.
