An exit, sort of

[Traconesu02]

It’s still too soon to put up the “Mission Accomplished!” sign.

That’s why 50,000 U.S. troops will remain in Iraq now that the last strictly combat unit has made a largely symbolic departure.

Certainly, though, the initial mission was accomplished — dismantling the evil (yes, evil) Saddam regime and ridding the region of a major menace and the world of a potential threat.

For this a debt of gratitude is owed to much-reviled President George W. Bush.

A second Iraq objective can’t be scratched off the checklist yet. That’s the objective of transforming Iraq into a reasonable facsimile of a democracy free of the depredations of sectarian hotheads, Al Qaida and neighboring Iran.

But again, thanks to a resolute George W. Bush, Iraq is much closer to that goal than it was when he ordered the unpopular U.S. troop surge in 2007.

Barack Obama as a senator opposed any intervention against the Saddam regime and stood foursquare against the surge that made the present drawdown possible — a drawdown negotiated, by the way, by the Bush administration.

President Obama is, however, deserving of some credit for not abandoning the field as he had insisted America do when he was senator and a presidential candidate.

Upon moving from the campaign stump to the Oval Office, Obama found himself bedevilled by reality and his own grandiose campaign rhetoric.

Besides the 50,000 remaining U.S. troops pending a (highly tentative) total military withdrawal a year from now, America will continue — for better or worse — to have a large, expensive, State Department-supervised presence in Iraq, according to a New York Times report.

That continuing presence will include, it’s said, a substantial contingent of security contractors (perhaps up to 7,000 contractor firms) and “diplomatic” bases that will cost $100 million each to build and $200 million each to maintain, plus additional armored equipment including MRAPS (“mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles”), a bolstered Predator and helicopter force and maybe up to 10,000 rapid-response combat-ready U.S. troops and special-ops personnel.

Given all this plus the expanded, problem-plagued U.S. military presence in Afghanistan — now widely and correctly labeled “Obama’s war” — it looks like anti-war leftists and anti-interventionist libertarians can continue to make the transition from Bush- to Obama-bashers.

Labeling Obama

Maybe sticker shock over the national debt isn’t the only reason President Obama’s poll numbers are dwindling. Maybe his religion — or what many mistakingly think is his religion — has something to do with it.

Only 34 percent of Americans correctly identify Obama as a Christian, while 18 percent incorrectly say he’s a Muslim, according to a Pew Research Center poll. Among those who say he’s a Muslim there is “overwhelming” disapproval of his job performance, the pollsters say.

Thirty-one percent of Republicans and 18 percent of independents incorrectly label Obama a Muslim. Is this abysmal ignorance? Partisan perversity? Some of both?

Even among Democrats, though, not even half (46 percent) correctly identify Obama as a Christian. Same for blacks, only 43 percent of whom get his faith right. (Ten percent of Democrats and 7 percent of blacks mislabel the president a Muslim.)

Those who are motivated by political ideology to call Obama a Muslim might be interested to learn they’re in sync with the view of some Islamic fundamentalists. This view holds that Obama is a Muslim because his father was one, and that the President is an apostate for declaring himself a Christian. Politics and religion make strange bedfellows, you might say.

http://www.trentonia...e0616466194.txt

[Jac]

Thank you for an excellent post.

[sportfisher]

It’s still too soon to put up the “Mission Accomplished!” sign.

That’s why 50,000 U.S. troops will remain in Iraq now that the last strictly combat unit has made a largely symbolic departure.

Certainly, though, the initial mission was accomplished — dismantling the evil (yes, evil) Saddam regime and ridding the region of a major menace and the world of a potential threat.

For this a debt of gratitude is owed to much-reviled President George W. Bush.

A second Iraq objective can’t be scratched off the checklist yet. That’s the objective of transforming Iraq into a reasonable facsimile of a democracy free of the depredations of sectarian hotheads, Al Qaida and neighboring Iran.

But again, thanks to a resolute George W. Bush, Iraq is much closer to that goal than it was when he ordered the unpopular U.S. troop surge in 2007.

Barack Obama as a senator opposed any intervention against the Saddam regime and stood foursquare against the surge that made the present drawdown possible — a drawdown negotiated, by the way, by the Bush administration.

President Obama is, however, deserving of some credit for not abandoning the field as he had insisted America do when he was senator and a presidential candidate.

Upon moving from the campaign stump to the Oval Office, Obama found himself bedevilled by reality and his own grandiose campaign rhetoric.

Besides the 50,000 remaining U.S. troops pending a (highly tentative) total military withdrawal a year from now, America will continue — for better or worse — to have a large, expensive, State Department-supervised presence in Iraq, according to a New York Times report.

That continuing presence will include, it’s said, a substantial contingent of security contractors (perhaps up to 7,000 contractor firms) and “diplomatic” bases that will cost $100 million each to build and $200 million each to maintain, plus additional armored equipment including MRAPS (“mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles”), a bolstered Predator and helicopter force and maybe up to 10,000 rapid-response combat-ready U.S. troops and special-ops personnel.

Given all this plus the expanded, problem-plagued U.S. military presence in Afghanistan — now widely and correctly labeled “Obama’s war” — it looks like anti-war leftists and anti-interventionist libertarians can continue to make the transition from Bush- to Obama-bashers.

Labeling Obama

Maybe sticker shock over the national debt isn’t the only reason President Obama’s poll numbers are dwindling. Maybe his religion — or what many mistakingly think is his religion — has something to do with it.

Only 34 percent of Americans correctly identify Obama as a Christian, while 18 percent incorrectly say he’s a Muslim, according to a Pew Research Center poll. Among those who say he’s a Muslim there is “overwhelming” disapproval of his job performance, the pollsters say.

Thirty-one percent of Republicans and 18 percent of independents incorrectly label Obama a Muslim. Is this abysmal ignorance? Partisan perversity? Some of both?

Even among Democrats, though, not even half (46 percent) correctly identify Obama as a Christian. Same for blacks, only 43 percent of whom get his faith right. (Ten percent of Democrats and 7 percent of blacks mislabel the president a Muslim.)

Those who are motivated by political ideology to call Obama a Muslim might be interested to learn they’re in sync with the view of some Islamic fundamentalists. This view holds that Obama is a Muslim because his father was one, and that the President is an apostate for declaring himself a Christian. Politics and religion make strange bedfellows, you might say.

http://www.trentonia...e0616466194.txt

You are incorrect, I discerned Obama was not Christian before the elections, nor did I vote for him. Why in the world anyone would think this man is a Christian ( a follower of Jesus Christ) is beyond me, Identify one little partical of fruit there for me will you that might hint towards a Christian faith. I've only discerned an anti-Christian presence so far. Now does this mean tha he cannot be saved? of course not (unless he is the anti-Christ himself), and Christians around the world should be praying for him and for his salvation. He has refered to his muslim faith himself and bowed to the Saudi King, and his wife has referenced to his home country of Kenya. Either you have an agenda here with your statements, and/or you are deceived like no other.

[Uncle Barkie]

I hate to say it Sportfisher but you demand proof he's a Christian and say that he is in no way one, yet where's your proof that he's not Christian. Please don't call people out for info when you've offered none yourself. I for one know he's Christian because I MYSELF sat in the same house of God when he was there... He's just a private man and chooses to not mix his Religion with politics, and rightfully so.It's called seperation of church and state.

Thank you for your post Traconesu02.

[mturbo21]

I hate to say it Sportfisher but you demand proof he's a Christian and say that he is in no way one, yet where's your proof that he's not Christian. Please don't call people out for info when you've offered none yourself. I for one know he's Christian because I MYSELF sat in the same house of God when he was there... He's just a private man and chooses to not mix his Religion with politics, and rightfully so.It's called seperation of church and state.

Thank you for your post Traconesu02.

what house of GOD was that?-

[DmsC]

I hate to say it Sportfisher but you demand proof he's a Christian and say that he is in no way one, yet where's your proof that he's not Christian. Please don't call people out for info when you've offered none yourself. I for one know he's Christian because I MYSELF sat in the same house of God when he was there... He's just a private man and chooses to not mix his Religion with politics, and rightfully so.It's called seperation of church and state.

Thank you for your post Traconesu02.

Just have to say this. Just because you may sit in a Christian Church and "pray praise and worship" does not make you a Christian. The separation of Church and state is not that someones belief systems can not be shown it is so that the Church doesn't control govts and we don't have another Spanish inquest on our hands.

[Sassysmom]

I hate to say it Sportfisher but you demand proof he's a Christian and say that he is in no way one, yet where's your proof that he's not Christian. Please don't call people out for info when you've offered none yourself. I for one know he's Christian because I MYSELF sat in the same house of God when he was there... He's just a private man and chooses to not mix his Religion with politics, and rightfully so.It's called seperation of church and state.

Thank you for your post Traconesu02.

There are a lot of non christians sitting in houses of worship everyday, that is not what makes a christian. A christian is one who follows the teachings of CHRIST, an strives to be CHRIST like. A christian is one who will pray for a muslim, but not with them. A christian will in no way persecute christians. A christian will abide by the laws of the land, as long as said laws do not go against the teachings of CHRIST. A christian would not lie and tell the world that this is not a christian nation, when this nation was founded on christian principals.

[woookiee]

Thanks for the post.

[tleite43]

I think if you all googled the word..... TAQIYYA ...... it may help shed some light about the confusion about "O"'s religion... C or M.