scottythecomic's whimsical rantings

The McCain article and the NY Times annotations below it.

In January 2007, when General David Betrayus Petraeus[NYT1] took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” He was completely wrong. The situation in Iraq is hopeless, the surge was a failure. Even Comrade Harry Reid has declared the war lost, so it must be true. Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains[NYT2] 

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy[NYT3] I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. I have to say, Senator Obama really got that one right. He nailed it. And have I mentioned that because He is so young, fresh, vibrant, brilliant, eloquent---that he makes me look even older than I am? It’s kind of annoying but I’m probably only irritated because that’s what happens when you get really old. 

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted[NYT5] [NYT6] .

The success[NYT7]  of the failure of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops[NYT8] domestic murderers. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speechsermon  this week, Hhe offered hHis “ Holy plan for Iraq” in advance of hHis first “fact findingMessianic Journey” trip to that country in more than three two thousand years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops assassins of the innocent out within 16 months, but it also was a message of hope, because after all, Senator Obama is the Savior of mankind. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.It was a far cry from the message that I brought over there which mainly consisted of spreading my love for the games of Scrabble,  and Shuffleboard, and murder of minorities.

To make this point, He manglesuses only  the hard evidence. He deftly points out that makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable. How do I top that? All I can offer is four more years of George W. Bush, and making the White House smell like those houses that old people live in. , when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, under the guidance of President Obama.but tThis  does not,means that as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops. The only help we should be giving them is, of course, all the sensitive locations of any remaining United States soldiers just before major operations---something this very paper has done very, very well.

No one favorsI favor a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq, as Senator Obama accurately charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. Of course, that won’t happen because Iraq is, as I’ve said, already lost so there is really no room for improvement. As we draw down in Iraq, we can make sure to give all of our troops racist soldier’s locations to the enemy so they can have adequate time to prepare for an attack. beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops evil soldiers  from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013. I will be 107 years old at that time. Probably won’t be able to talk much anymore. I’ll be going to the bathroom every five minutes. I’ll be so, so, so very old and crusty. You know how Presidents look so young when they start and then by the end of their term they have aged? Can you imagine what I will look like at the end of my term? I’ll try to play as much Pinochle as possible to stay fit, but the job of President can be, at times, too demanding for those shananegans.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama. Unfortunately for me and my campaign, Senator Obama is once again correct and I am once again siding with George W. Bush and his corrupt administration.

Senator Obama has said that hHe would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, and I commend him for that. He is truly showing signs that He will be a great President. I’m starting to think that perhaps I should just bail on this whole thing and keep the cushy job in the Senate. Did you know they have new puzzles out in the lobby for us to work on every week? I’m talking the 5,000 piece ones. I know!

 [NYT9]Blah blah blah shut up already old man!

but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous[NYT9] .”

The danger hope is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have so valiantly in the past when we’ve had too few troops military based serial killers  in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing so much from recent history. I find it ironicneat  that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration French by waving the “Mission AccomplishedWe surrender” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed overjoyed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But iIf we don’t win the war, our enemies will.Good! A triumph for the terrorists would be a disasteran overall positive for us. That is something I will wish I’d not allow to happen as president, but I’m too incompetent and old. A triumph for the terrorists. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.May the Universe Bless America, and may Mother Earth bless the animals, rocks and trees. Thank you.

----------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------<
/p>

Times Notations Here:

 [NYT1]Never use birth name when option of MoveOn dot org name is available.  [NYT2]We don’t usually worry about printing non-truths, but this just can’t be true. And we refuse to investigate it any further, so.  [NYT3]People won’t understand positive  [NYT5]This is just mean. You are a mean old man. Can’t you cut the guy some slack?  [NYT6]Geez, Senator. This is going to be a short piece if you keep trying the old school politics of using the facts against your opponent. We don’t like facts here---that’s not what we do.  [NYT7]Objection!  Speculation…move to strike.  [NYT8]Troops? We here at the New York Times better know them as domestic murderers. Didn’t you read our wonderful piece unlocking the trend that all war vets come home and start killing people?