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 ...
> Obama’s Global Victory Lap Has McCain Desperate <
The idiocy of John Nichols, author and obvious Obama media $10 whore.
Maybe what the left doesn;t simply grasp is that even if Barak goes campaigning on Venus, Jupiter or the Klingon Empire, it’s the votes AT HOME, BY AMERICANS that count.
Of course, the only overseas votes that absolutely counts are by our brave servicemen...
John Nichols is a far-left socialist twit. He’d better wait awhile before he concludes that Obambi’s pathetic tour will hold up. I have never yet seen one article of his that was worth reading.
A great quote from Obama today: "Israel has always been a strong supporter of Israel."
Pretty apt description of John Nichols...a $10 whore.
The lying kind...that steals all of your money out of your wallet when you’re asleep and sneaks out.
It’s inevitible that at some point on this tour Obama will commit a Huge Gaffe that will lower his poll ratings by at least 10 points. He just doesn’t have it with foreign affairs (or any other affairs).
>> that everyone who matters seems to agree with — McCain is scrambling.
EVERYONE WHO MATTERS!
Now there is a expression you do not see every day!
I can’t wait to read “but every one I know voted for Obama” comments after Democrats lose 40 states.
Afghanistan is primarily an United Nations effort at this time. If John Nichols had any clue of the facts, there would be a call for the European nations to come up with sufficient troops to front a surge in Afghanistan. As for phony candidate Obama, he has no clue. He is just reading the script written by fools.
You people are so biased it hurts your credibility. McCain made an error by goading Obama into going to Iraq. Obama gained credibilty when the Iraqis and the White House approved of a 16 month “time horizon.” We will be hearing this while seeing Obama with a backdrop of smiling American soldiers until November. Obama has gotten plenty of favorable coverage becuase this is a historic trip no matter what is said because this is a historic election. If Hillary Clinton was running as the first woman, the coverage would also be more biased than normal.
This is “The Nation” after all. What else would they say ?
It’s not important to know anything when the press worships you.
In 2012 I think I’ll run my dog for president. He’s really cute, and he’ll take great photo ops. And he’s been excelling at his job (guarding my house) longer than Obama’s been in the Senate.
The media loves to paint it that way, but it's incorrect. The "time horizon" is nothing new or innovative cranked out by Obama. It has since years been the Bush Administration's outlayed plan that if the Iraqi step-by-step take over their country with improving security, we'll be drawing down combat troops. It's condition based. "Iraqis stand up, we stand down" is Bush policy since 2005. Bush, McCain, Maliki are on the same page with this, despite the media spin on Maliki's comments, which was refuted by the Iraqi Government quickly after. This is only reinforced by the impending US-Iraqi agreement on troops status.
What Obama wants is immediate withdrawal 2003/2004/2005/2006/2007/2008 at any given date, at any situation, WITHOUT ANY preconditions. This is the definition of unconditional surrender. It's just the refusal of Bush and the Republicans to surrender that we have stayed now well into 2008. Now the coincidence has Obama's timeframe for withdrawal lay together with an possible drawdown of victorious combat troops after the Surge, which Obama and the Dems specificially opposed!
WHENEVER we start to draw down troops from Iraq, the Obamanation will claim credit, just like any cheap phony.
Like any of this is a shock?
Obama takes a trip around the world, he gives a speech, he blows his nose - whatever it is, the press is gonna swoon and declare it the best trip/speech/sneeze since ever was. Only in the minds of our sycophant media would the fact that they’re working overtime to make someone look good constitute a story. In a few days Obama will come home and the polls will remain just as they were before; the believers will still be voting for their messiah, the doubters will still be voting against him, and the undecideds won’t even know he went anywhere (duh, they’re undecided, they don’t watch the news).
What is so historic about it? We have had to choose the better of two idiots before, nothing new there. I am going to vote against the Marxist (Obama) and hope the Democrat (McCain) wins.
The election is historic because Obama is dark skinned. He also happens to be photogenic, so it makes sense that the press would cover his every move.
Do a little research before you start dealing in absolutes. SW was not absolutely lying. You make some ill-informed statement that someone is a liar and do not give that person the same opportunity you gave to Obama. Perhaps SW was only being ambiguous?
The quote was “Obama wants immediate withdrawal”. How the hell do you know what Obama wants enough to call someone a liar? You don’t..........and you can read at this link where Obama is quoted as calling for immediate withdrawal. No ambiguity, no carefully worded deceits, it is Obama calling for immediate withdrawal:http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Sep/12/br/br6275409318.html
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!!!!
He got booted off of here pretty quick...
The ChronicTroll 420 has been zotted.
Stupid journalist, hasn’t he noticed that as Obama’s about his jet-setting around the globe, his polling numbers are going nowhere. The media is creating “Obama fatigue” and the guy’s not even the nominee yet.
Good riddence. I checked the profile before my first reply and it seems to me he/she registered sometime in 2005. Sleeper infiltrator? I wonder how much of that sort of thing goes on and whether the mods have some means of identifying them before they identify themselves. It’s been so long I can’t recall if we were required to submit an email address to register.
He or she may have used someone else’s identity. Pretty blatant. I think they should have left the person on there, as it was a respectable debate.
“He also happens to be photogenic”
By whose judgement?
The sight of him literally makes my skin crawl and my stomach churn.
[and it’s not his “looks”; it’s black-hearted soul glowering from his dead eyes that sickens me]
AQ was counting on its functional allies , the Democrats , to carry through on their '06 electoral victory and force the beginning of a U.S. withdrawal. The iraqis had every reason to see whether that bet was right, especially with the removal of Rumsfeld and the ascendancy of the Iraq working group formulations that the media were touting. Bush went the other way and that encouraged the Iraqis to expand on the progress that was already being made. The one thing you claim would have worked, the status quo of 12/06 wouldn't have been politically viable in the US.
I think it was October 2007.
“It was the Surge in concert with an increased cooperation with the tribes that turned Iraq around.”
Along with changing the Rules of Engagement to allow a more aggressive prosecution of the war.
Yes indeed. Especially the agressive persecution of Iranian spies and agents.
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.