U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 17, 2008 06:04 AM UTC
13 Comments
The only problem with this is, it’s George Bush’s plan that is ending the war. The President-Elect had nothing to do with it. He will however get all the credit as it will take place on his watch.
if we adhere to this timeline and Iraq can stand on its own, keep the violence down, and run their own affairs, then Bush will get credit IMHO.
There is so much talk about victory and defeat, but if we leave an Iraq that is better off than when we arrived, isn’t that victory ? Why does staying in Iraq somehow define victory ?
If they can’t keep their act together, and govern, and we leave a weak state, it creates a power vacuum, inviting interference from Iran, Syria, etc. This would be a failure.
in August was because of the election. So it’s fine to let the GOP nominee take the credit if it helps win an election, but doing the responsible thing even though the wrong guy will get the credit is some kind of a problem for you?
A lot can happen in three years. Three years ago, Iraq was plunging into civil war.
That said, Bush may end up getting the credit for the fact that the troops will end up actually leaving in less than 100 years.
However, that will not be enough to vindicate him from making the decision that put us there in the first place.
No Iraqi WMD. No imminent threat to the US. No ties to Al-Qaeda. No Iraqi connection to the 9/11 attacks.
Even though we’re probably going to leave and Iraq won’t be a smoldering crater when we do, it was Bush’s arrogance and miscalculation that put us in a war that we didn’t have to wage.
.
Mike Mullen says it will take 2 to 3 years to pull out.
The guy must be savvy politically to get the top military job.
What are the chances that he made that comment off the cuff, without first running it by the Obama Transition Team ? Who among us thinks he doesn’t know about the election 2 weeks ago ?
That was a trial balloon. I can tell you from personal experience that a combat division that is tactically deployed can pull up stakes and move immediately after receiving a Frag Order. And by “immediately,” I mean within less than an hour.
So the discussion about “will it take 2 weeks or two years” is not about whether units have maps and fuel and the ability to execute operations.
It’s not even about deciding what equipment and supplies must be recovered, what will be turned over to the Iraqis, what will be destroyed in place, and what will simply be abandoned.
An article in today’s Washington Post had an Iraqi official saying that more time was needed so that US forces could help contain the internal security situation, and a US official saying that time was needed to train up the Iraqi military so they could defend against external threats.
I know a little about Iraq’s neighbors. The only one with the capabilities and intentions to do Iraq harm is Israel. We could protect Iraq from an Israeli attack better by withholding funds than by training the Iraqi Air Force, which has only 13 propeller-driven aircraft.
.
I know a little about Iraq’s neighbors. The only one with the capabilities and intentions to do Iraq harm is Israel.
Exactly what reason would Israel have for attacking Iraq at this time? Right now the only nation that has any interest in seeing Iraq destabilized would be Iran.
.
Right or wrong, I believe that the US attacked Iraq in 2003, bottom line, because a cabal of neocons thought that a weakened Iraq translated to a safer Israel, and they were able to manipulate a weak-minded Decider in Chief.
The most clear rationalization that President Bush gave for the unprovoked invasion was because Saddam Hussein had paid over $200,000 in stipends to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. And that wasn’t $200 grand for more bomb materials, it was for subsistence and living expenses of survivors left behind.
That $200,000 expenditure by Saddam was the principle justification for us spending what looks like could add up to $2-10,000,000,000,000 on the war.
Now, with rational thinkers in charge in Knesset, Israel poses no threat today to what used to be Iraq. But if Binny Nitanyahu should be elevated again to PM, watch out Najaf.
…..
The context of my remark: a US military official claiming that US security considerations demand that we stay in Iraq longer than Obama’s 16-month horizon in order to train Iraqi fighter pilots to shoot down enemy aircraft (or something like that.)
Iran has no need to send fighter aircraft to attack Iraqi military units, not when the leadership of the Iraqi military is de facto a sectarian militia (Badr organization) that is stridently pro-Iranian.
Besides, Iranian fighter aircraft are mostly US-built Phantom F-4’s that haven’t flown in 20+ years due to the embargo.
The threat to Iraq from Israel is small, but it is the largest one from any of its neighbors. If I was a better writer, I would have clarified that really none of Iraq’s neighbors poses any credible threat of overt military invasion or cross-border strikes. That’s not to say that they don’t have interests at stake, and that they won’t meddle through covert, deniable means, somewhat like Syrian interference in Lebanese affairs.
In my opinion.
.
.
In the halls of power, people are angling and positioning right now to be blessed when the chips start to fall into place.
Even the chameleon Petraeus has adapted to the new reality.
How long did it take Bush to fire Admiral “Fox” Fallon, Petraeus’ predecessor as CINC CENTCOM, after he said that a war with Iran was against US interests ? Almost 6 months.
He wasn’t forced out until publication of the March 2008 article in Esquire Magazine, which described him as the only thing standing between the Bush Administration and war with Iran.
Bush is emasculated. If he ordered a strategic (nuclear) first strike now, that order wouldn’t be carried out unless Gates (and maybe Obama) approved.
.
But his finger is still on the button for a few more weeks.
.
and we can get a definite answer, one way or the other.
.
about the reasons for the invasion. There is probably more than a little truth in there about one of the rationals behind the decision to go after Saddam.
But I think if Bibi gets back into the PM’s chair in Israel, the military actions you are most likely to see are against Iran, Syria, the West Bank, and Hezbollah occupied Lebanon, not necessarily in that order. Iraq as it currently stands is not a viable threat to Israels existence.
That was supposed to be a reply to Barron X’s reply to my post.