Posted on 07/19/2008 5:28:28 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Here are some questions he SHOULD be asked!
So the anointed savior of the American left is busy on his world tour this weekend, having already visited Kuwait and Afghanistan. Along for the ride are some of the leading lights of the American “news” media.
Before the acolytes of the anointed one boarded the plane with Obama representatives of John McCain’s campaign handed reporters a briefing book, complete with Obama’s faux presidential seal and containing 17 pages of suggested questions reporters who were truly interested in serving the public good as opposed to a liberal political agenda might want to ask.
Marc Ambinder has a copy of the briefing book and you can download it here.
Here are a sampling of questions from the briefing book that I’d like to see answered:
You said on “Meet the Press,” on May 4, 2008, “I think we have to be focused on Afghanistan.” So why is it that, according to The Hill newspaper, you have “missed two of three Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Afghanistan since joining the panel” ? And why have you only now decided to visit Afghanistan for the first time after having been in office for more than three and a half years? Yet you’ve already visited Iraq once. Why aren’t you focused on Afghanistan in your work as a senator?You’ve also talked about how critical it is to get our European allies to increase their contributions in Afghanistan. “As we step up our commitment,” you said on August 1, 2007, “our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO’s efforts.” Yet as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs since January 2007 you haven’t held a single hearing on this or any other subject. Why not? Are you putting your political ambitions above doing the job that the people of Illinois elected you to do?
You predicted that the surge in Iraq would fail. In January 2007 you said, “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” You still deny that the surge has been a success, even if violence is down. “Iraq’s leaders have not made the political progress that was the purpose of the surge,” you claim. Yet you are now proposing a smaller surge in Afghanistan of two brigades, or about 8,000 troops. Why do you think a smaller surge will work in Afghanistan when you were convinced that a bigger surge would fail in Iraq?
At a presidential debate on February 21, 2008, you complained that our troops in Afghanistan “didn’t have enough ammunition, they didn’t have enough Humvees.” So why did you vote against giving them the funding they need to fight? On May 24, 2007, you were one of only 14 senators who voted against a $94.4 billion spending bill that included crucial funding for our troops not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan.
You’ve said we need to “use the power of American diplomacy” and that “It’s time to turn the page on the diplomacy of tough talk and no action.” Yet in the very same speech, you also said: “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” Pakistan’s foreign minister branded your statement as “very irresponsible.” Why do you think it’s a good idea to bluster in public about taking military action on the soil of an American ally? And how do you think that such statements will help you to achieve your goal of initiating “a new relationship” with Pakistan “so that we can get better cooperation to hunt down al-Qaeda”?
More Questions For Obama
There are more questions in the briefing book for Obama in Iraq. And I invite readers to add their own in the comments section.
But here are a few more I would like to ask:
Iraq
You’ve repeatedly said that you never would have gone to war with Iraq. How would you explain to the mother searching the mass graves in Hila for her family (see below) or the couple who braved violence to vote with their children why they would have been better off with Saddam still in power?
A little twist with this one......
Why isn’t Barry going to Pakistan?????????????????????
SOFTBALL is a big sport in Afghanistan I hear.
Obama is Jimmy Carter all over again, only a lot worse.
Actually, there is a good answer to that. The answer is that Senate committee hearings are not, in fact, designed to help inform anyone of the facts important to the issue. They are prescripted performances to advance various agendas. No one learns, or is meant to learn, anything about the facts.
That may be the truth but Obama can't say it, any more than any other congresscitter can say it.
But it's also not why he didn't care enough to attend.
Actually, there is a good answer to that. The answer is that Senate committee hearings are not, in fact, designed to help inform anyone of the facts important to the issue. They are prescripted performances to advance various agendas. No one learns, or is meant to learn, anything about the facts.
That may be the truth but Obama can't say it, any more than any other congresscitter can say it.
But it's also not why he didn't care enough to attend.
Darn it, my finger stuck.
I wonder how much money he’s raising there?
******************EXCERPT******************
By JOHN HENDREN July 19, 2008
As Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama began his globe-trotting tour in Afghanistan today, he faced shifting sands in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
When the presidential race field narrowed to two major candidates, both of them staked out clear positions.
Obama said the troop surge in Iraq would fail to cut violence or improve political reconciliation, calling Iraq "an impediment" to success in the war on terror, which he said should be focused on Afghanistan.
John McCain, Obama's likely Republican opponent, called Iraq the center of the war on terror, and famously speculated that the United States could maintain a presence there for as long as 100 years.
In political campaigns, as in war, the sands shift over time. Both candidates pointed that out -- about their rivals -- this week.
On Tuesday, Obama said pointedly: "The central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was."
In his radio address today, McCain fired back, saying, "We all remember quite well that he said the surge would fail, and today we know that he was wrong."
With the situation in Iraq improving, and Afghanistan mired in a worsening insurgent fight, Obama's trip -- one of the most high-profile job auditions in history -- will give him a high-profile opportunity to seize on the changing calculus of the war on terror.
"In Iraq, he's playing defense; in Afghanistan, he's trying to profit from an opportunity," said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst with the Brookings Institution.
You can’t seriously think that his 3 press secretaries are going to interrupt their Obasm to ask questions. They are too busy fawning to ask about his hypocrisy.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Obama will be our next POTUS book it.....
Way too many so-called Americans want “Change”....
Ask him about his foreign birth........
I would ask him: Barry Dunham, where is your WHITE GRANDMOTHER, why are you hiding her?/Just Asking - seoul62.......
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
He will never be POTUS... he may get elected in which case ge will be PO**S! shortened to POS!
PRAY that HUSSEIN will not be Elected! for America’s SAKE..
I'm asking because I have yet to know one person that will vote for him.
Now, if Queen Hillary happens to snatch the nomination from Obama at the Denver Convention I think she will win in the general. I don't believe Obama can beat McCain, Hillary will. Hillary has gobs of sleeves and all are full of tricks.If Hillary doesn't manage to get the nomination she will help sink Obama.
Of course that is my HO.
Good questions he’ll never answer, even if the best response is fed to him via a teleprompter.
McQueeg’s missed far too many votes in the Senate to be casting stones at others’ attendance.
“...in Afghanistan, he’s trying to profit from an opportunity”
Isn’t Obama committing a rather major blunder by supporting an escaltion of war in Afganistan? It seems to me that bringing the troops home from Iraq was the major reason for people supporting him. So now he’s saying he’d send them to Afganistan instead? This doesn’t sound like “change we can believe in” to me.
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.