Yes, they're going to regret that having come out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby
Printable View
Yes, they're going to regret that having come out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby
That is the ENTIRE problem with Obama's campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby
He claims to value change and unity, but his life and voting record suggests he wants nothing to do with unity...and only wants change if it reflects the values of the liberal elite.
That is PRECISELY way John McCain still is beating BOTH Democratic rivals in polling head-to-head right now, albeit by slim margins. Despite Obama's surge in popularity, I think a majority of Americans still have deep concerns about him. I just don't see how those concerns are going to be eliminated as we move to November, as Obama just has nothing to point to on his political resume to convince people he can do what he says he wants to do.
More Obama problems...via CNN
- - -
(CNN) -- Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama engaged in a pointed exchange over al Qaeda in Iraq on Wednesday.
McCain questioned whether Obama was aware of the al Qaeda base. Obama's response was: "There was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."
McCain was in Tyler, Texas, and Obama was in Columbus, Ohio.
"I understand that Sen. Obama said that if al Qaeda established a base in Iraq that he would send troops back in militarily. Al Qaeda already has a base in Iraq. It's called al Qaeda in Iraq," McCain said.
"It's a remarkable statement to say that you would send troops back to a place where al Qaeda has established a base -- where they have already established a base."
McCain's comments come in response to remarks Obama made Tuesday night in a debate with Sen. Hillary Clinton. He was asked if the president would have to right to go back into Iraq in order to suppress an insurrection after downsizing the U.S. troop presence.
"I always reserve the right for the president ... to make sure that we are looking out for American interests," Obama said. "And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."
In a statement sent out by McCain's press office Wednesday said, "Is Sen. Obama unaware that al Qaeda is still present in Iraq, that our forces are successfully fighting them every day, and that his Iraq policy of withdrawal would embolden al Qaeda and weaken our security?"
Obama responded to the latest attacks from McCain, saying his comments were taken out of context.
Obama said the question he was asked during the debate was a "big hypothetical."
- - -
The only big hypothetical I see at this time is Obama's ability to lead this nation in foreign policy. The guy is a dope when it comes to international affairs. That is to be expected of a guy his age. A young JFK nearly put us into a nuclear war with the USSR, and there is no reason to expect Obama will show any better reasoning on the international stage. The guy was only a STATE SENATOR a few years ago...he SHOULDN'T have vast international experience. Unfortunately, being president of a world power requires some foreign policy experience.
Obama can try to backtrack all he wants...but to hold the stance that you want an immediate withdrawl of troops now, then say (even hypothetically) that you would support going back in if al Qaeda had a base in Iraq...when al Qaeda ALREADY is operating out of Iraq currently...borders on ridiculous.
Obama's lack of seasoning in foreign affairs is going to be a major weakness in his campaign this summer.
It will be interesting to see how Clinton utilizes Obama's comments against him. This was a slip by Obama, and McCain called him on it. Will Clinton also use it to her advantage?
Neither of the democrats are calling for an immediate withdrawal from IRaq. They are ambiguous.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leaper
When the fuck did big media take control of the debates from the League of Women voters? Was it 2000 or 2004? What a joke it's become....not once have they talked about the defense budget as far as I have seen.
Obama was absolutely right about it being a "big hypothetical". The whole scenario was based on the premise, based on a previous Russert question, that the Iraqi government would tell the U.S. to get all of their troops out of Iraq. It is highly unlikely that the Iraqi government would do that as long as Al-Qaeda is operating there. Hence the hypothetical. Obama has consistently said he intends to keep a small force in Iraq to protect the embassy, and to deal with Al-Qaeda. Obama didn't "backtrack" one bit and skewered McCain today for being part of the reason that there is an Al-Qaeda in Iraq. The best thing that could happen to Obama would be for people like you and McCain to continue to underestimate him.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leaper
I listened to it all and your correct Mailman...typical political spin on McCains part. Smart move though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joemailman
This is not a serious idea, it is flim-flam. If we learned anything in Iraq, it is that to "deal with Al-Qaeda" means to protect the civilians from Al-Qaeda intimidation. That is not done with a small force.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joemailman
I can't say any of the Democratic candidates, with exception of Joe Biden, have spoken honestly or seriously about Iraq.
Obama is going to be stuck with a lot of troops in Iraq for his first term. He will do his best to draw down, probably more aggresively than McCain would. But until the Iraqi Army & provincial forces can provide security, we'll have 100K troops there. And they'll need air/logistical support for several years after that, requiring maybe 50K troops.
I think Obama will have an advantage over McCain in Iraq - he can more credibly pressure the Iraqis to compromise and get on with it. McCain has already offered a permanent security blanket. But the humanitarian situation will keep a lot of troops there for many years.
Staying to Help in Iraq
We have finally reached a point where humanitarian assistance, from us and others, can have an impact.
By Angelina Jolie
Thursday, February 28, 2008
The request is familiar to American ears: "Bring them home."
But in Iraq, where I've just met with American and Iraqi leaders, the phrase carries a different meaning. It does not refer to the departure of U.S. troops, but to the return of the millions of innocent Iraqis who have been driven out of their homes and, in many cases, out of the country.
In the six months since my previous visit to Iraq with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, this humanitarian crisis has not improved. However, during the last week, the United States, UNHCR and the Iraqi government have begun to work together in new and important ways.
We still don't know exactly how many Iraqis have fled their homes, where they've all gone, or how they're managing to survive. Here is what we do know: More than 2 million people are refugees inside their own country -- without homes, jobs and, to a terrible degree, without medicine, food or clean water. Ethnic cleansing and other acts of unspeakable violence have driven them into a vast and very dangerous no-man's land. Many of the survivors huddle in mosques, in abandoned buildings with no electricity, in tents or in one-room huts made of straw and mud. Fifty-eight percent of these internally displaced people are younger than 12 years old.
An additional 2.5 million Iraqis have sought refuge outside Iraq, mainly in Syria and Jordan. But those host countries have reached their limits. Overwhelmed by the refugees they already have, these countries have essentially closed their borders until the international community provides support.
I'm not a security expert, but it doesn't take one to see that Syria and Jordan are carrying an unsustainable burden. They have been excellent hosts, but we can't expect them to care for millions of poor Iraqis indefinitely and without assistance from the U.S. or others. One-sixth of Jordan's population today is Iraqi refugees. The large burden is already causing tension internally.
The Iraqi families I've met on my trips to the region are proud and resilient. They don't want anything from us other than the chance to return to their homes -- or, where those homes have been bombed to the ground or occupied by squatters, to build new ones and get back to their lives. One thing is certain: It will be quite a while before Iraq is ready to absorb more than 4 million refugees and displaced people. But it is not too early to start working on solutions. And last week, there were signs of progress.
In Baghdad, I spoke with Army Gen. David Petraeus about UNHCR's need for security information and protection for its staff as they re-enter Iraq, and I am pleased that he has offered that support. General Petraeus also told me he would support new efforts to address the humanitarian crisis "to the maximum extent possible" -- which leaves me hopeful that more progress can be made.
UNHCR is certainly committed to that. Last week while in Iraq, High Commissioner António Guterres pledged to increase UNHCR's presence there and to work closely with the Iraqi government, both in assessing the conditions required for return and in providing humanitarian relief.
During my trip I also met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has announced the creation of a new committee to oversee issues related to internally displaced people, and a pledge of $40 million to support the effort.
My visit left me even more deeply convinced that we not only have a moral obligation to help displaced Iraqi families, but also a serious, long-term, national security interest in ending this crisis.
Today's humanitarian crisis in Iraq -- and the potential consequences for our national security -- are great. Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won't explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder?
What we cannot afford, in my view, is to squander the progress that has been made. In fact, we should step up our financial and material assistance. UNHCR has appealed for $261 million this year to provide for refugees and internally displaced persons. That is not a small amount of money -- but it is less than the U.S. spends each day to fight the war in Iraq. I would like to call on each of the presidential candidates and congressional leaders to announce a comprehensive refugee plan with a specific timeline and budget as part of their Iraq strategy.
As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible.
It seems to me that now is the moment to address the humanitarian side of this situation. Without the right support, we could miss an opportunity to do some of the good we always stated we intended to do.
Come to Ohio and watch some campaign advertisements and tell me how ambiguous Obama is. When you are campaigning under slogans such as "END THE WAR", I find it difficult to agree with your "ambiguous" opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby
How does Obama have any ability to credibly pressure anyone? He's a fucking joke in terms of the world stage...while McCain is a former POW and has decades of experience in terms of national security and foreign relations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby
He HOPES he can do something. He doesn't have one shred of evidence that he can credibly do anything on an international stage.
You honestly look like an idiot by saying that Obama will have an advantage over McCain in any foreign relations matter. As the campaign wears on, that will actually be one of Obama's greatest weaknesses.
Leaper,Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leaper
Puhlease. McCain is a joke on foreign relations as well.
McCain's whole career has dedicated to the idea that America must always have the right to solve problems using force.
He has NEVER argued against force. He has argued for increased military force in virtually every engagement.
1. He complained about Clinton's "excessively restricted air campaign" in Kosovo. Campaigning vehemently for a ground invasion.
2. During the 94 flap over Pyongyang's nuclear program, he called for "more forceful, coercive action."
3. In 99, he argued THE ONLY WAY to deal with Saddam was "to strike disproportionate to the provocation."
Ever read his book? Very frightening. He complains about the pols who refused to allow pilots like himself to attack, say, Soviet ships unloading arms to the vietnamese port cities. "We thought our civ commanders were complete idiots."
Great..bomb the ships...WW3.
There is enough evidence that points to mccain seeing war as righteous and necessary, a tonic for the national soul. "Noble" irrespective of the context.
It ain't a joke when he casually says, "There's gonna be other wars," or sings "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb iran."
Perhaps you are unaware that the same campaign speeches he now gives he said back in 99 at a commencement at Phillips Exeter. So, HE KNEW THE ANSWER TO THE IRAQ MESS before it even happened.
I for one, would appreciate someone who is going to think about the situation and doesn't think they have the answer before the problem.
I for one don't appreciate his attitude that only military commanders like petraeus can decide when we leave Iraq...and don't appreciate his sneering attitude that it shouldn't be some "civilian running for president."
Simple, Obama is coming in with a mandate to get out of Iraq, whereas McCain would have on to "win the war". We are propping up the regime in Iraq and if they are about to lose their prop, they will be under enormous and desperate pressure to get their own security working at least to a base level, for their own personal survival. (Sen. Evan Bayh was just on the radio saying basically the same thing).Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leaper
Evan Bayh also said this: "We will need to stay the course, and not just remove the yoke of Saddam Hussein, but ensure that that yoke is not replaced by another."Quote:
Originally Posted by MadScientist
So which is it? Stay the course or pull the prop? Or is it just a matter of whichever response polls better?
Leaper's starting to sound a little cranky. We may be in the process of finding our own Tex. :P
I find it hard to believe that McCain, who is sounding more and more like Bush, would have more credibility internationally than either Obama or Clinton given Bush's international reputation. Most of the rest of the world is looking for a separation from the Bush policies, not more of the same.
My new fav Bush idiocy, "The Turks need to move, move quickly, achieve their objective and get out."Quote:
Originally Posted by Joemailman
Irony at its finest.
How does McCain sound like Bush? He's not a cowboy...he's a respected politician who has been on the forefront of American foreign policy and national security for two decades.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joemailman
Where did W have that on his resume?
I would agree that a lot of political elites in Europe probably think Obama is right up their alley.
Obama has zero international credibility. He's done nothing on the world stage to achieve respect. I'm not saying that he is incapable of achieving something...just that with respect to McCain, Obama comes up woefully short in terms of foreign policy experience. His statements claiming we should attack Pakistan and have open dialog with dictators like Mr. Nutjob in Iran and Fidel's little wanker in Cuba only proves that point.
What? If we aren't ready to give Obama a blow job, then we are off the deep end?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joemailman
Bush has never moved quickly in his life...except to grab beer at a kegger while at Yale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Bigguns
Their objective, post-hostilities, won't be to assist an entire nation in the process of forming, sustaining, and securing a new democracy after a half century of despotism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Bigguns