Posted on 07/22/2008 11:31:19 PM PDT by Red Steel
Did the Republican who would be president really think that by goading Democrat Barack Obama into visiting Afghanistan and Iraq -- countries the senator from Illinois was going to have to visit as part of an image-building international tour -- he would somehow trip-up his November rival?
Was McCain under some delusion that international leaders would subtly undermine the Obama tour and thus confirm that the Republican ally of discredited lame-duck President George Bush
-snip-
If that was the case, then McCain really is too foolish to be president -- not merely of the U.S. but of his stamp club.
As Obama goes from strength to strength -- sinking baskets, drawing cheers from the troops, forging a plan to extract most U.S. forces from Iraq that everyone who matters seems to agree with -- McCain is scrambling.
Of course, it is true that Obama is too open to a wider U.S. commitment in Afghanistan and too closed to a wider U.S. commitment to seeking peace in the Middle East. But, in each case, he appears moderate when compared to the bombastic McCain.
-snip-
are warming to Obama with each passing day of an international journal that looks less like a listening tour than a victory lap.
What's a McCain to do?
The Republican appears to be thinking about trying to trump Obama, not with some foreign-policy masterstroke but with some old-fashioned politics.
-snip-
Syndicated columnist Robert Novak claims that McCain will make a vice presidential pick quickly. "Sources close to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign are suggesting he will reveal the name of his vice presidential selection this week while Sen. Barack Obama is getting the headlines on -snip-
Is it really possible that McCain would use a vice presidential designation to grab some cheap headlines away from Obama?
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Don't call me a liar, bucko! You totally miss the point. Obama was continuosly opposed to our presence in Iraq. Regardless of what his exact plan for withdrawal is, he wanted to withdraw combat troops from Iraq since years. The current situation, if it continues along the lines it is, would allow such a thing. But it would have been fatal one or two years ago. The point is that Obama doesn't care a damn about the actual situation. His mantra is always combat troops out, support troops/SpecOps remain. This would be suicide if it is not dependant with an improved security situation, as it would render the remaining troops ineffective and basically as sitting ducks.
When it comes to the surge, lazy thinking would conclude that must be the reason for the situation in Iraq today. The troops have made a big difference, but the reason Iraq is relatively stable is because Sunni uprisings against terrorists and Shi’ite militia cease-fires. Not that I was against the surge but that could have been done with the 130,000 troops we already had there.
Total rubbish. The Sunni Awakening would have been useless without the additional troops. Equally the Shia trouble in the South would have been impossible to control without additional troops holding the peace in Baghdad and elsewhere. It was the Surge in concert with an increased cooperation with the tribes that turned Iraq around. Either one alone would have been ineffective. The low troop levels where partly responsible for the troubles we faced 2004-2006. It's suspect that you are touting the Obama line here.
“The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year — now,”
No where in that statement does Obama say all the combat troops should leave Iraq.
“But our draw down should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month,” he said. “If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year.”
The key phrase is “should be out of Iraq by the end of next year,” Obama uses phrases like “should” and “goal” when talking about leaving Iraq.
Another thing that must be clear is that Obama has never called for a with drawl of American troops by any date!
He has always supported the idea of a 60,000+ force of air support, reactionary and training forces throughout the next Presidency.
“The troops have made a big difference, but the reason Iraq is relatively stable is because Sunni uprisings against terrorists and Shi’ite militia cease-fires.”
That’s a near perfect paraphrase of Obama’s statement in Jordan and a new leftist talking point. The Sunni reversal only got up to speed after the announcement and then implementation of “the surge” and its implication of America’s commitment and resolve.
I’ll stop short of characterizing your statements as absolute lies, but surely you realize you’re purveying leftist talking points designed to spin reality and supply cover for Obama.
Go back to DU troll!!!!!!!!!!
“It’s suspect that you are touting the Obama line here.”
To say it’s suspect is being awfully generous. Chronic Cough’s statement is a perfect paraphrase of Obama’s in Jordan.
All of the greatest strides toward stability and security (which even the war critics and Obama himself now concede), November, ‘06 forward, occurred after the surge was announced and put in motion.
These two sentences are totally unrelated!
The first pertains to the date, the second to the seize of drawdown? Where is your difficulty in understanding? He wanted always to remove the combat troops. Phased but unconditionaly.
You are attacking the wrong one. “WildcatClan” is not the troll. “chronic cough 420” is the one touting the Obama line!
Its not unconditional when you use statements like “we SHOULD take out 1 or 2 brigades a month” and that “all combat brigades SHOULD be out of Iraq in a year”. That sounds more like goal setting then policy making.
This is callous. They are bustling today BECAUSE of the TEN THOUSANDS of extra soldiers who implemented an improved strategy!
Extra soldiers cannot and did not defend against death squads and suicide bombings.
More crap coming from your direction. Who the heck killed and captured the Jaish-al Mahdi death squads and took out the Al-Qaeda cells!? Coalition troops with assistance from locals!
Opps!!!!! Sorry!!!!
My apologies WildCat. Don’t suffer the FOOL!!!!
You are dancing around semantics. Obama has to say SHOULD, because he isn’t in a position to implement his policy! He is not President! Did you miss this fact? What else can he say? He is outlaying his policy! He opposed our presence every SINGLE YEAR since OIF. And yes, it is unconditional. As Obama has repeatedly said Iraq is only a distraction for him, an optional war without any value and expendable. He stressed that there is NO reason to stay there, not even the prospect of a Genocide in Iraq. You are making yourself a total fool.
Obamaton troll alert!
The surge isn’t the only thing that has been going on in Iraq the last few years. The biggest complaint a few years ago was that the local security was horrendous while running water and electricity was a luxury. The fact that these fronts have improved is a natural process that would have probably occured without the surge.
Probably!? No, genius. Beside the goalpost shifting you are doing now (from security to infrastructure), this again is flat out wrong. We were building infrastructure for/and with the Iraqis pre-surge, but these development was spotty and suffered under repeated attacks and sabotage. The improved security the Surge provided made it possible to ramp up speed of reconstruction and ward of sabotage.
Is anyone watching this stuff? I haven’t seen anything. I heard O Reilly say that “he’s negotiating” with the Obama campfor an interview.
Don’t hold your breath. O Reilly will offer up a powder puff interview instead of some hard hitting questions.
I can think of several I’d like to ask. Start with why did you take the American Flag off of the plane? Obama:We did this for security reasons. Better that we do not post our flag, as that would invite terrorists. ANSWER: SO if you’re elected president you’ll not fly in Air Force ONe with our flag prominent? OBAMA: No.
Nobody on the planet knows what Obama believes, not even the Messiah himself:
Barack Obama, July 14, 2008 New York Times op-ed
“Iraq’s leaders... have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.”
Barack Obama, July 21, 2008, interview with ABC News’ Terry Moran
“So what you had is a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops... I am glad that in fact those political dynamic shifted at the same time that our troops did outstanding work.”
Barack Obama, Amman, Jordan, press conference, July 22, 2008
“So far, I think we have not seen the kind of political reconciliation that’s going to bring about long-term stability in Iraq.”
I think this is a flip-flop on a flip-flop on a flip-flop, although I may be missing one flip-flop. I’ve lost track.
It is a travesty that we have someone running to be the CIC who would rather give props to some Sunni and Shiite thugs than place the victory at the foot of our brave men and women.
The very fact that you can spew your nonsense freely and openly is due to a solider. But maybe they don't teach you that at your liberal think tank.
You and your kind who blindly follow this farce of a man, make me SICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
God Bless our Troops and their families. And God spare our nation from Barack Obama!!!!
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.