So when Barack Hussein Obama changes his mind on Iraq will Janett still support him?

[dude1394]

Democrats have enjoyed having the media cover their backs for decades.

How refreshing to see the media treat Barck Hussein Obama like a real candidate instead of "their" candidate. The messiah is looking a lot more like mohammad with many, many warts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071802595.html

How Big Are Those Bundles?
Barack Obama's failure to practice what he legislates

IT WASN'T so long ago -- last September, to be specific -- that a senator with a particular interest in campaign finance reform introduced a bill to provide important transparency in presidential campaigns. The measure, S. 2030, would require presidential campaigns to report the names of fundraisers who bring in "bundles" of individual contributions totaling $50,000 or more. The campaigns would have to report the occupations of the bundlers and the specific amounts they are credited with raising. This was a terrific idea. It's too bad that the bill's sponsor, Barack Obama, is failing to follow the rules he set out.

[Robillion]

I think the whole "Straight-Talker" slogan tied to McCain is straight up ridiculous and all of this flip flop talk about Obama just as ridiculous. Obama has not flip flopped at all on his opinion or goals for the Iraq War... He has always been against it, and has always said that his first mission in office would be to end the war. Obama is a smart man... he knows that you cant just one day pack up everything and get out. He never spoke of anything of the sort and has always said that he his plan of taking out 1-2 brigades a month and being out in 16 months was based off advise and information given to him stating that it was possible. The key word that he added into his stance was "refine" which gave the republican attach machine enough wiggle room to come in and say he was a flip flopper. That he had always had this concrete time table and now he is saying it is conditions based. Obama had always said he would listen to those on the ground and his advisers to end the war in the fastest and more secure way possible.
It definitely seems like every single thing that republicans try to jump on regarding Obama has little to do with what he actually says or believes or will actually do. They are just trying to put whatever spin they can on everything he says.

Now.... on to Mr. Straight Talker. HA! That is the biggest croc of bull. McCain has got to be one of the most incoherent politicians I have ever seen. He is known for speaking his mind but his mind changes on a very consistent basis.. You cannot find videos such as the ones below for Obama. He is no where near the flip flopper that McCain is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZl...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NVXiOMJkSI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5-DnNsoA5Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVWh5...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLXVCITcY-8


And of course there are many many more videos. And many many more regarding his temper and his lack of leadership ability. The proof that this guy has no place in public office let alone the oval office is abundant.

[Janett_Reno]

McCain equals what flavor of the week is it and what am i suppose to say today? When he joined up with W and Cheney after they threatned to kick him out of the republican party and if he did not kiss butt and say what they told him to do and say is when he went to one of the worst flip floppers ever and continues to be. He keeps changing positions on many things. Just wait untill the debates, i bet Obama will remind him on stage.

[wmbwinn]

Quote:
Originally Posted by chumdawg
Why do you even care much anymore? The Supreme Court has validated your right to carry weapons wherever you go, so why is this still the sole issue for you?

Quote:
Originally posted by wmbwinn:

The gun battle never dies just as the abortion battle never dies. There is the next nuance and next legislation and next judge. There is the next state law, the next city law, the next governor.

We won an important gun battle decision. It is not over. Obama did not really retreat. He is just smart enough to not talk about it. I believe his response was something like, "good, now we have some guidance to look at as we craft laws"

That is not a retreat. It is a sign that a new strategy will be developed.

----------------------------------------

found this. I'm not surprised.

Friday, July 18, 2008

Only a few weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Heller case, which struck down D.C.'s ban on handguns and allowed having a firearm in operable condition at home, D.C. has passed "emergency" law and new police regulations intended to retain as much of the ban and storage requirement as possible. The law was crafted in consultation with the Brady Campaign, according to the Washington Post.

There are many objectionable features to the new D.C. law and regulations, but two stand out as particularly egregious. Though the Supreme Court ruled that D.C. could not ban handguns, the new rules would still ban all or most semi-automatic pistols. And in spite of the fact that the court ruled that D.C. cannot ban the use of guns for protection in the home, the District still prohibits having a gun loaded and ready unless an attack within your home is imminent or underway.

Without Congress' intervention, D.C. can violate the intent of the Heller decision indefinitely. That is because under "Home Rule," D.C.'s emergency bills are not subject to review by Congress, and D.C. can reinstitute "emergency" laws every 90 days. The city's officials are already thumbing their noses at the Supreme Court.

"They're doing everything that they can to not comply with the Supreme Court ruling," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox, who characterized the new law as "a joke." "Unless the criminal calls you beforehand and lets you know he's coming over ... you're going to be left defenseless."

In a true case of irony, and a fine example of the absurdity of the District's "compliance" with the Supreme Court's decision, Dick Heller, the man who brought the lawsuit against the District, and on whose case the Court ruled, was among the first in line this week to apply for a handgun permit. But when he tried to register his semi-automatic pistol, he was rejected! Heller's gun has a seven round magazine. D.C.'s law defines any semi-automatic as a "machine gun" if it is "capable of" firing more than 12 shots without reloading. D.C. police interpret this as banning any "bottom-loading" semi-automatic handgun, regardless of its actual capacity. That's outrageous.

As things currently stand, a handful of arrogant politicians in a city that accounts for less than two-tenths of one percent of the population of the country, and less than two one-thousandths of one percent of the country's land mass, appear determined to disregard a decision of the country's highest court. Therefore, it's time for them to be taught as much about the Constitution's Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (which defines Congress's total authority over the District of Columbia), as they were recently taught about the Second Amendment.

In an effort to remedy the District's arrogant flouting of the Supreme Court's clear mandates, Representative Mark Souder (R-Ind.) recently introduced H. Res. 1331, a rule to govern House consideration of a modified version of H.R. 1399--the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act." (H.R. 1399 was introduced in March of 2007 and has 247 cosponsors. For more information on H.R. 1399 and its Senate companion bill, S. 1001 by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), please go to http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...d=72&issue=020)

H. Res. 1331 would force House consideration of H.R. 1399 if activated by a discharge petition, which will require 218 congressional signatures. It would provide for speedy consideration of legislation to enforce the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller by repealing the provisions of the D.C. Code that were at issue in that case, and by preventing the District from enacting the very restrictions they are now trying to foist on their residents' Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

NRA-ILA is fully committed to restoring the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding residents of Washington, D.C., and will fight this critically important battle until victory is in hand.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and urge him or her to press Congressional leadership to bring H.R. 1399 to the House floor. It's time to nullify, once and for all, the unconstitutional gun laws that Washington, D.C.'s government has imposed on D.C. residents and other Americans for more than 30 years.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Fe...d.aspx?id=4099

--------------------------
That, my friend, Chum is what I'm talking about. The fight never dies...
You can see what Washington DC is doing to ignore the Supreme Court and you can see the NRA in action.
The Republicans just can't buy this kind of voter base motivation on TV

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You have set up a very convenient circular argument for yourself. You want evidence of something a senator has done to qualify himself for the office, yet at the same time you express your disdain for senators as potentially qualified leaders. Which is it? If senators, according to you, just don't make executive decisions, how am I supposed to show you evidence of Obama making executive decisions?

I suppose you realize by now that your argument of "what has Obama ever done" applies equally to McCain, within the confines you set.

Again...you know that Obama has only been a senator...and you have clearly expressed your disdain for senators...yet you ask for evidence why a senator should be favored as the choice for POTUS. In that case, let's not throw out "How is he qualified?" questions when you support a candidate with equally deficient qualifications in your eyes.

Don't fool yourself by thinking I support McCain. I don't. I think he has the same problems Obama has, in that he's a useless Senator. I have said before that I think McCain was the worst choice of all of the Rep contenders. Most of the things McCain has accomplished as a Senator are things I don't support, kinda like McCain/Feingold or McCain/Lieberman. His little "Gang of 14" didn't make me too happy either. However, when it comes to decision making and experience, the one thing McCain has over Obama is military experience. So if my only real choices for POTUS are Obama or McCain, I'll vote for McCain and then go gag myself.

[chumdawg]

There are a lot of people who rather than vote for a guy and then go gag themselves will simply not get out and vote.

That's what McCain is dealing with. Turnout is going to kill him.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Yes we do. We know that obama believes in more government control over our lives, as the most liberal senator in the senate, you can be sure that he won't be nominating a clarence thomas for sure.

We know that he will have a tremendous pressure to nominate liberal judges, just as mccain will have pressure to nominate more conservative judges.

I agree with your assessment of Obama. However, when it comes to McCain... He is well known for his "maverick" status. No matter how much pressure is on him from the Republicans, he has a very long track record of giving his own party the bird, so to speak. If by some miracle McCain wins, and if he nominates a moderate left leaning judge, I can only hope his own party gives him the bird too, kinda like we did to W when he nominated that chick who was clearly unqualified (the pre-Alito nominee, can't remember her name and too tired to look it up).

[chumdawg]

McCain is a loose cannon. Good luck with figuring out what he stands for and what he will do.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

There are a lot of people who rather than vote for a guy and then go gag themselves will simply not get out and vote.

That's what McCain is dealing with. Turnout is going to kill him.

Completely agree. And that is also why I agree with wmbwinn when he said in another thread that Obama is very inspiring to Republicans too. Some of us who otherwise just wouldn't show up to vote will be voting for McCain, as an Anti-Obama vote and not a Pro-McCain vote.

But you're right. It's hard to motivate a base of people to "get out the vote" when they're voting against someone instead of for someone else.

This is why I say it's "Obama's race to lose". If he wins it will be expected. If he loses, it will be his own damn fault.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Completely agree. And that is also why I agree with wmbwinn when he said in another thread that Obama is very inspiring to Republicans too. Some of us who otherwise just wouldn't show up to vote will be voting for McCain, as an Anti-Obama vote and not a Pro-McCain vote.

But you're right. It's hard to motivate a base of people to "get out the vote" when they're voting against someone instead of for someone else.

This is why I say it's "Obama's race to lose". If he wins it will be expected. If he loses, it will be his own damn fault.

In the end, the idea of "voting against" someone never fully comes to fruition. Or at least, there is certainly no evidence that it ever has.

Come election day this year, everyone is going to have the idea so ingrained in their head that electing a black represents huge progress in our country, that they won't be compelled by any ideological motives.

If McCain needs an anti-Obama vote to get elected, he should just quit now, because it ain't gonna happen.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

In the end, the idea of "voting against" someone never fully comes to fruition. Or at least, there is certainly no evidence that it ever has.

Come election day this year, everyone is going to have the idea so ingrained in their head that electing a black represents huge progress in our country, that they won't be compelled by any ideological motives.

If McCain needs an anti-Obama vote to get elected, he should just quit now, because it ain't gonna happen.

Again, I agree with you. McCain has a tough road ahead that I think will ultimately be a failure. Wasn't it Karl Rove who said you have to motivate people to vote FOR you instead of AGAINST your opponent? But I'll still vote for him, because I dislike him less than I dislike Obama. If I choose to not vote at all, then what right do I have to complain when Obama starts implementing his worst policies?

And I know I have said this before, but I'll say it again. Voting for Obama just because he is black is not progress at all. That's nothing more than Affirmative Action being applied to the top job in America.

[chumdawg]

You may well be one of the people who are inclined to get out and vote enthusiastically and vehemently for the lesser of two evils, but you don't have a lot of company. Most will just stay home.

And yes, they can still complain. Such a tired bromide, this idea that if you don't cast a vote you don't have standing to complain. There are as many people who don't vote as there are people who do vote. The candidates are trying to get those people out to the polls. If they can't convince them to vote, they deserve whatever opposition comes toward to them. The decision to not cast a vote is every bit as important as the decision to cast one.

If you don't think having a black president represents progress in this country, I don't know how to respond to you. It would be extraordinary progress, especially when considered against electing a 70-something white man.

[dude1394]

Having a black conservative president would be progress. Having a black liberal president is going to be a nice PC event.

[wmbwinn]

I'm not sure how a thread about Obama's position on Iraq turned into the thread about race.

Real quick- It is progress that a person of any race can legitimately expect to be plausible in a national election for President.
It is racist that race matters, whether it is to celebrate or to defame.

That is all. I'd like to get back to Obama's views on war:

-------------------------------------
By FISNIK ABRASHI, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 6 minutes ago



KABUL, Afghanistan - Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama met Sunday with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a man Obama has chided for not doing enough to rebuild his war-torn country.


Obama and Karzai held talks and lunched together at the presidential palace in Kabul. Karzai's office released video showing the two men seated in front of a marble fireplace, chatting and smiling. They made no public comment. [wmbwinn inserts that we would expect no different because Obama avoids talking about anything of content as much as possible].

Obama has made Afghanistan, where Taliban and al-Qaida-linked militants are resurgent, a centerpiece of his proposed strategy for dealing with terror threats. The candidate has said the war in Afghanistan deserves more troops and more attention as opposed to the conflict in Iraq. [wmbwinn inserts that this ought to make the Hippie anti war left very happy that they nominated Obama over Hillary primarily due to their anti war views and now Obama is saying, "lets increase war in Afghanistan". On the other hand, I personally am glad that he intends to succeed militarily in both Iraq and Afghanistan and has NO REAL PLAN TO RETREAT BEFORE WE WIN].

Earlier in the day during breakfast with soldiers at Camp Eggers, a heavily fortified military base in the city, Obama praised the U.S. troops.

"To see young people like this who are doing such excellent work, with so much dedication ... it makes you feel good about the country," Obama said.

"I want to make sure that everybody back home understands how much pride people take in their work here and how much sacrifice people are making. It is outstanding," he said in video footage from the military obtained by The Associated Press.

[wmbwinn inserts: saying all the right things to help moderates who support the military consider him... Isn't he the "anti war candidate" in the mind of most Americans who don't read the news and study it?]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080720/...ma_afghanistan

[wmbwinn]

WASHINGTON - A fixed timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq could jeopardize political and economic progress, the Pentagon's top military officer said Sunday.

Adm. Mike Mullen said the agreement between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to set a "general time horizon" for bringing more troops home from the war was a sign of "healthy negotiations for a burgeoning democracy."

"I think the strategic goals of having time horizons are ones that we all seek because eventually we would like to see U.S. forces draw down and eventually all come home," the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman said. "This right now doesn't speak to either time lines or timetables, based on my understanding of where we are."

The best way to determine troops levels, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman said, is to assess the conditions on the ground and to consult with American commanders — the mission that Bush has given him.

"Should that mission change, and we get a new president, and should those conditions be conditions that get generated or required in order to advise a future president, I would do so accordingly," Mullen said. "Based on my time in and out of Iraq in recent months, I think the conditions-based assessments are the way to go and they're very solid. We're making progress and we can move forward accordingly based on those conditions."

The prime minister was quoted by a German magazine over the weekend as saying U.S. troops should leave "as soon as possible" and he called Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's suggestion of 16 months "the right timeframe for a withdrawal."

Mullen, asked about the possibility of withdrawing all combat troops within two years, said, "I think the consequences could be very dangerous."

"It hard to say exactly what would happen. I'd worry about any kind of rapid movement out and creating instability where we have stability. We're engaged very much right now with the Iraqi people. The Iraqi leadership is starting to generate the kind of political progress that we need to make. The economy is starting to move in the right direction. So all those things are moving in the right direction," Mullen said.

The military buildup in Iraq that began more than 18 months ago has ended. In recent days, the last of the five additional combat brigades sent in by Bush last year has left the country. Asked if the security improvement he has seen would have occurred without the troop buildup, Mullen said, "No, I don't think it could have."

If conditions keep improving, "I would look to be able to make recommendations to President Bush in the fall to continue those reductions," Mullen said. Asked if more troops might depart before Bush leaves office in January, Mullen said, "Certainly there are assumptions which you could make which would make that possible."

Turning attention to Afghanistan, where violence is on the rise from Taliban attacks, Mullen expressed concern about "a joining, a syndication, of various extremists and terrorist groups which provides for a much more intense threat, internal to Pakistan as well as the ability to flow — greater freedom to flow forces across that porous border."

The top U.S. commander in Iraq said in an Associated Press interview Saturday that after intense U.S. assaults, al-Qaida may be considering shifting focus to its original home base in Afghanistan. Gen. David Petraeus said there are signs that foreign fighters recruited by al-Qaida to do battle in Iraq are being diverted to the largely ungoverned areas in Pakistan from which the fighters can cross into Afghanistan.

U.S. officials have pressed Pakistan for more than a year to halt the cross-border infiltration. It remains a major worry not only for the war in Afghanistan but also for Pakistan's stability.

Mullen called the issue of safe havens in Pakistan "for foreign fighters, for al-Qaida, for Taliban and the insurgents that are now freely — much more freely able to come across the borders — a big challenge for all of us. And it's having an impact on our ability to move forward in Afghanistan."

He cited "mixed progress" in Afghanistan, but added, "I would not say in any way, shape or form that we're losing in Afghanistan."

Noting U.S. participation in international talks Saturday with Iran over its nuclear program, Mullen said he was encouraged. "A few weeks ago I wouldn't have thought those were possible."

But he said he supports continued economic, financial, diplomatic and political pressure on Iran "to bring them to a point where we can all deal with this issue of nuclear weapons."

"I fundamentally believe that they're on a path to achieve nuclear weapons some time in the future. I think that's a very destabilizing possibility in that part of the world. I don't need — we don't need — any more instability in that part of the world." Mullen said.

Asked about the fallout from a potential attack against Tehran by either the U.S. or Israel, Mullen said, "Right now I'm fighting two wars and I don't need a third one ... not that we don't have the reserve to do it in the United States."

He added, "I worry about the instability in that part of the world and, in fact, the possible unintended consequences of a strike like that and, in fact, having an impact throughout the region that would be difficult to both predict exactly what it would be and then the actions that we would have to take to contain it."

Iran, he said, seems "headed in the direction of building nuclear weapons and having them in their arsenal, and ... we need to figure out a way to ensure that that doesn't happen."

Mullen was interviewed on "Fox News Sunday."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/mullen_two_wars

----------------------------------

should be interesting to see what happens when the cards are all down on the table. I think that Obama will do what he said he would do which is (if you listen very carefully) listen to the commanders on the ground and make decisions about speed and timing of troop changes/reductions (switching from combat roles to training roles, etc.) in order to leave Iraq only AFTER THE WAR IS OVER, not in a magic 16 month time period.

And, the issue of the Iraq's government's sovereignty is a big issue. If they truly want us out ahead of time or before we think it is a good idea, then we will leave early. BUT, I think that Maliki is a politician also. I think he says what his people want to hear. I think that when the cards are down on the table, that Maliki does not kick the troops out. He will want them for ongoing security.

They may officially say combat troops are out and 100, 000 training troops are there. Whatever. That is semantics and politics.

[dude1394]

It is pretty amazing to see the left who voted for Barack Hussein Obama primarily because he was more anti-iraq than Clinton was now so expertely try and allow him both sides of his mouth.

As usual with the dems and the media, you have to make sure it doesn't disappear into historical revisionism.

The Obama military slogan...Strength through Retreat!!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...5/329myyan.asp

Obama, Democrats, and the Surge
They were against it before it worked.
by Peter Wehner
07/28/2008, Volume 013, Issue 43

This is the week that the Democratic party ran up the white flag when it comes to the surge in Iraq. Leading the surrender was none other than Barack Obama, the Democratic party's presumptive nominee for president and among the most vocal critics of the counterinsurgency plan that has transformed the Iraq war from a potentially catastrophic loss to what may turn out to be a historically significant victory.

On Monday, Obama wrote a New York Times op-ed in which he acknowledged the success of the surge. "In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge," Obama wrote, "our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda--greatly weakening its effectiveness." A day later, Obama gave a speech in which he declared for the first time that "true success" and "victory in Iraq" were possible. In addition, the Obama campaign scrubbed its presidential website to remove criticism of the surge.

The debate, then, is over, and the (landslide) verdict is in: The surge has been a tremendous success.

Obama, in typical fashion, is trying to use the success of the surge he opposed to justify his long-held commitment to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq as quickly as possible. But turning Iraq into a winning political issue won't be nearly as easy as Obama once thought. He has stepped into a trap of his own making.

The trap was set when Obama repeatedly insisted that his superior "judgment" on Iraq is more important than experience in national security affairs. Judgment, according to Obama, is what qualifies him to be commander in chief. So what can we discern about Obama's judgment on the surge, easily the most important national security decision since the Iraq war began in March 2003?

To answer that question, we need to revisit what Obama said about the surge around the time it was announced. In October 2006--three months before the president's new strategy was unveiled--Obama said, "It is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we've been in right now."

On January 10, 2007, the night the surge was announced, Obama declared, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." A week later, he insisted the surge strategy would "not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly." And in reaction to the president's January 23 State of the Union address, Obama said,

I don't think the president's strategy is going to work. We went through two weeks of hearings on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; experts from across the spectrum--military and civilian, conservative and liberal--expressed great skepticism about it. My suggestion to the president has been that the only way we're going to change the dynamic in Iraq and start seeing political commendation is actually if we create a system of phased redeployment. And, frankly, the president, I think, has not been willing to consider that option, not because it's not militarily sound but because he continues to cling to the belief that somehow military solutions are going to lead to victory in Iraq.

In July, after evidence was amassing that the surge was working, Obama said, "My assessment is that the surge has not worked."

Obama, then, was not only wrong about the surge; he was spectacularly wrong. And he continued to remain wrong even as mounting evidence of its success gave way to overwhelming evidence of its success.

But Obama is not alone. Virtually the entire Democratic party, including every Democrat running for president, opposed the surge. For example, Senator Joseph Biden--considered by some pundits a foreign policy sage--declared, a few days before the surge was announced, "If he surges another 20, 30 [thousand], or whatever number he's going to, into Baghdad, it'll be a tragic mistake."

Hillary Clinton, on the night the surge was announced, said, "Based on the president's speech tonight, I cannot support his proposed escalation of the war in Iraq."

Senator John Kerry said this in February 2007: "The simple fact is that sending in over 20,000 additional troops isn't the answer--in fact, it's a tragic mistake. It won't end the violence; it won't provide security;  .  .  .  it won't turn back the clock and avoid the civil war that is already underway; it won't deter terrorists, who have a completely different agenda; it won't rein in the militias."

Kerry's fellow Massachusetts senator, Ted Kennedy, declared that any troop increase would be "an immense new mistake."

Representative Dennis Kucinich, in this instance speaking for the mainstream of his party, put it this way: "It has been proven time and time again that troop surges don't work."

In April 2007, Senate majority leader Harry Reid declared the Iraq war "lost" and insisted, "This surge is not accomplishing anything."

Also in April, Senator Christopher Dodd said, "We don't need a surge of troops in Iraq--we need a surge of diplomacy and politics. Every knowledgeable person who has examined the Iraq situation for the past several years--Baker and Hamilton, senior military officials, junior officers--has drawn the same conclusion--there is no military solution in Iraq. To insist upon a surge is wrong."

In September 2007, Senator Dick Durbin, the Democratic majority whip, in anticipation of congressional testimony by General Petraeus, said, "By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that violence in Iraq is decreasing and thus the surge is working. Even if the figures were right, the conclusion is wrong."

A month later Representative David Obey, asked if the surge strategy was working, offered the view that if violence is decreasing in Iraq, it may be because insurgents "are running out of people to kill."

In February of this year, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer about the success of the surge in Iraq. "Are you not worried, though, that all the gains that have been achieved over the past year might be lost?" Blitzer asked.

"There haven't been gains, Wolf," Pelosi replied. "The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure."

And as recently as last month, Governor Bill Richardson, when asked if he was ready to concede that John McCain had been right in proposing the surge because it seemed to be having a positive impact, answered, "Absolutely not."

Democrats, then, have compounded their initial bad judgment about the surge with reckless obstinacy. As ethno-sectarian violence in Iraq rapidly declined, as al Qaeda absorbed tremendous military blows, and as political accommodation and legislative achievements have emerged, Democrats, rather than welcoming the progress, grew agitated. They embraced with religious zeal the belief that the Iraq war was lost; they therefore viewed the success of the surge as a terribly inconvenient development, one they sought to deny to the point that they looked silly and out of touch. Worse, Democrats acted as if they had a vested interest in an American defeat.

Rarely has a political party been so uniformly wrong, in such an obvious way, on such an important matter. And when Americans cast their vote on November 4, they should carefully consider how Barack Obama and the entire Democratic party fought ferociously and relentlessly to undermine a policy that has worked extraordinarily well and may yet prove to be among the most successful military plans in modern times.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by jefelump

The difference between Clinton and Obama is that Clinton held the position of Governor. Whether or not you feel he did a good job, at least he did SOMETHING. He was the head of the executive branch of the state government. That is an accomplishment in and of itself. He wasn't a "newbie" when he took the Oath of Office to be POTUS. Tell me what Obama has done that in your opinion qualifies him to be President. Please give me at least ONE legitimate reason to vote for him. And when I say "legitimate", I mean something not related to his party affiliation, race, religion, or ability to speak.

Interesting tidbit about McCain that I didn't realize. I didn't think he'd had control of anything of significant size but it appears that he has. I'm not sure how big his fighter squadron was (anyone know?) of if the billion dollars was primarily because of aircraft, but a billion bucks is a sizable executive responsibility, no matter where it resides.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13545

WASHINGTON -- As I suggested a few weeks ago, Senator Barack H. Obama is not going to have an easy time of it. For one thing, Senator John McCain is a much tougher candidate than has been suspected. Looking over his career, one will note that McCain learned politics before ever entering politics. As a young Navy liaison to the Senate in the 1970s, he worked effectively with Democratic and Republican hawks to reverse the post-Vietnam military decline. He, having managed the largest fighter squadron in the Navy, has management skills of which he can boast as Senator Obama cannot -- despite the junior senator from Illinois' prodigious capacity to boast. McCain's budget for his squadron was more than a billion dollars. Finally, in this inhospitable year for Republicans, McCain's record of independent conservatism positions him so that he is difficult to attack and poised to pounce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_...174_(U.S._Navy)

The squadron received its first A-7E in December 1969, and transitioned the Atlantic Fleet's first squadron VA-81 on 1 June 1970. In addition to conducting squadron transition training, VA-174 continued to train all the replacement pilots and enlisted maintenance personnel who served in the Atlantic Fleet Light Attack Squadrons. As of 1 August 1971, VA-174 had trained 535 pilots, 48 maintenance officers and 4815 enlisted maintenance personnel. VA-174 was the largest aviation squadron in the U.S. Navy. Commander John McCain was the Executive Officer and Commanding Officer of VA-174 in the mid 1970s.

[jefelump]

Wow, a Senator who has something significant in terms of leadership and responsibility. Granted, it was before his time as a Senator. I guess Obama is just too young and inexperienced at this point in his life. lol

[wmbwinn]

Wesley Clark, a different ex-military political opportunist, thinks that McCain's experience as a POW and as a commander in peace time operations is not qualification to be Prez....

But, he thinks Obama is just swell because he lead... surely something before.

[dude1394]

Wesley Clark...Didn't he play in Dr. Strangelove?

[dude1394]

No doubt. When you are divorced from reality, what's the point of acknowledging it.

Today, Obama Said That Even Knowing What He Knows Now, He Would Not Have Supported The Surge:

Obama Told ABC's Terry Moran That, Despite The Progress That Has Occurred In Iraq, He Would Not Have Supported The Surge. Moran: "'[T]he surge of U.S. troops, combined with ordinary Iraqis' rejection of both al Qaeda and Shiite extremists have transformed the country. Attacks are down more than 80% nationwide. U.S. combat casualties have plummeted, five this month so far, compared with 78 last July, and Baghdad has a pulse again.' If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you -- would you support the surge?" Obama: "No, because -- keep in mind that -" Moran: "You wouldn't?" Obama: "Well, no, keep -- these kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult . Hindsight is 20/20. I think what I am absolutely convinced of is that at that time, we had to change the political debate, because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with." Moran: "And so, when pressed, Barack Obama says he still would have opposed the surge." (ABC's "World News," 7/21/08)

[dude1394]

How delicious...How deliciously obtuse.

Couric: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?

Obama: Katie, as … you've asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There's no doubt.

Couric: But yet you're saying … given what you know now, you still wouldn't support it … so I'm just trying to understand this.

Obama: Because … it's pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that's money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision-- to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.

Couric: And I really don't mean to belabor this, Senator, because I'm really, I'm trying … to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq …

Obama: Yes.

Couric … would exist today without the surge?

Obama: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there's no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that-- not just today, not just yesterday, but I've said that-- previously. What that doesn't change is that we've got to have a different strategic approach if we're going to make America as safe as possible.

Paraphrasing for the messiah..."beats me, won the election though didin't it, beeyatch".

That interview was tremendously enlightening. As I expected Clinton is and would have been a much stronger candidate.

[alby]

Barack, grow a pair.

[dude1394]

Janet...so now that BO supports preemptive war..will you call him a neo-con also?
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/...gainst_s_1.php

More from an exclusive preview of Katie Couric's interview with Barack Obama:

Couric: If they reject negotiating-- if they reject negotiations, how likely do you think a preemptive military strike by Israel against Iran may be?

Obama: I-- I will not hypothesize on that. I think-- Israel has a right to defend itself. But I will not speculate on-- the-- the difficult judgment that they would have to make-- in a whole host of possible scenarios.

Couric: This is not a speculative question then. Was it appropriate, in your view, for Israel to take out that suspected Syrian nuclear site last year?

Obama: Yes. I think that there was sufficient evidence that they were developing-- a site using a nuclear-- or using a-- a blueprint that was similar to the North Korean model. There was some concern as to what the rationale for that site would be. And, again, ultimately, I think these are decisions that the Israelis have to make. But-- you know, the Israelis live in a very tough neighborhood where-- a lot of folks-- publicly-- proclaim Israel as an enemy and then act on those proclamations. And-- I think that-- you know, it-- it's important for-- for me not to-- you know, engage in speculation on what steps they need to take. What I can do is to provide leadership-- so that the United States government hopefully doesn't get us into a position where-- those decisions are so difficult. That's why applying tough diplomacy, direct diplomacy, and tough sanctions-- where necessary is so important.

[jefelump]

Obama: Yes. I think that there was sufficient evidence that they were developing-- a site using a nuclear-- or using a-- a blueprint that was similar to the North Korean model. There was some concern as to what the rationale for that site would be. And, again, ultimately, I think these are decisions that the Israelis have to make. But-- you know, the Israelis live in a very tough neighborhood where-- a lot of folks-- publicly-- proclaim Israel as an enemy and then act on those proclamations. And-- I think that-- you know, it-- it's important for-- for me not to-- you know, engage in speculation on what steps they need to take. What I can do is to provide leadership-- so that the United States government hopefully doesn't get us into a position where-- those decisions are so difficult. That's why applying tough diplomacy, direct diplomacy, and tough sanctions-- where necessary is so important.

Gee, the so-called great orator stuttered more times in that response than GW Bush ever has in such a short statement... So we see that when Obama doesn't have his handy dandy little teleprompter, he's not so good on his feet.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Gee, the so-called great orator stuttered more times in that response than GW Bush ever has in such a short statement... So we see that when Obama doesn't have his handy dandy little teleprompter, he's not so good on his feet.

Where did he stutter?

[jefelump]

All of those little dashes in the transcript. Find the audio soundbite online, I'm sure it's available.

[chumdawg]

A dash is a perfectly good punctuation mark that expresses how we speak. I don't find anything in the transcript that suggests a stutter. You do?

[mary]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Gee, the so-called great orator stuttered more times in that response than GW Bush ever has in such a short statement... So we see that when Obama doesn't have his handy dandy little teleprompter, he's not so good on his feet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6mnWImtRTo

ETA: Not to bag on anyone for stuttering (or stammering)...I have the problem myself. Just sayin....

[jefelump]

Yes, Bush stutters. That is well known fact. That video is basically a montage of stuttering, and not a continuous segment of speech. But nonetheless, that is why I said, "the so-called great orator stuttered more times in that response than GW Bush ever has in such a short statement." I acknowledge GW can't speak to save his life.

Here are the video clips of the question and answer session from Obama's tour of the middle east. The reporters don't have a mic, so it's hard to hear their questions, but you can hear Obama's answers. You'll have to scroll down towards the bottom for the video clips.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/a...obama-rec.html

My only point here is that Obama is not the great speaker that he's made out to be. Conservatives on this board criticized Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark's comments about McCain's "non war time" military command, and others on this board said it didn't matter that Obama didn't have ANY military experience, because that's not what he's running on. OK, so flip the tables here. One of Obama's big claims to fame is that he's such a great speaker. He mesmerizes people. So my point is that he's not so great a speaker when he's talking "off the cuff" and not with a teleprompter in front of him. That's all.

[mary]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Yes, Bush stutters. That is well known fact. That video is basically a montage of stuttering, and not a continuous segment of speech. But nonetheless, that is why I said, "the so-called great orator stuttered more times in that response than GW Bush ever has in such a short statement."

So you weren't being literal here? Because if you were, that's a pretty bold claim and would require entirely too much research for anyone to disprove. If you were speaking figuratively, then I "gotcha".

So my point is that he's not so great a speaker when he's talking "off the cuff" and not with a teleprompter in front of him. That's all.

Ok. Have you observed this in other impromptu occassions, or just this one?

You see, I really was not on my "game" during lecture tonight. I'm pretty sure I slaughtered a few meaningful points of discussion, and wasn't quite as clear on some topics as I could've been.

I had a rough night.

On other nights, I hit it out of the ballpark.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by mary

So you weren't being literal here? Because if you were, that's a pretty bold claim and would require entirely too much research for anyone to disprove. If you were speaking figuratively, then I "gotcha".



Ok. Have you observed this in other impromptu occassions, or just this one?

You see, I really was not on my "game" during lecture tonight. I'm pretty sure I slaughtered a few meaningful points of discussion, and wasn't quite as clear on some topics as I could've been.

I had a rough night.

On other nights, I hit it out of the ballpark.

Yes, I was speaking figuratively. As I wrote it, the phrase "they misunderestimated me" came to mind...

No, I have not observed this in other impromptu speeches. However, the reason why is I have rarely seen or heard Obama give an impromptu speech. Most of the time when he speaks, it's prepared beforehand. If you can name other times when he did a Q&A-type session, then I would be happy to go look it up and listen to what he has to say. I personally can think of no other occasions, but I also haven't followed Obama that much. The Dem debates during the Primaries didn't interest me.

I can understand the "not on my game tonight" argument. However, Obama is overseas doing this rock star world tour. He has a huge entourage of reporters with him. You can't tell me he isn't well prepared for these press conferences. He's making speeches all along the way. This is a big deal for Obama. It's basically his Foreign Policy experience gathering tour. If he's not "on his game" on this tour, then I would hate to see what he's like when he's truly barraged with questions he's not prepared for.

[dude1394]

Can Janett support someone who hires Blackwater USA? I mean where is his scruples.

I guess Blackwater USA is the epitome of corporate evil in the minds of lefties everywhere. At least until you need them:
US News & World Report
Washington Whispers
Blackwater Got the Gig Securing Obama in Afghanistan

Whaaa? Our Lord and Savior used Satan to provide security?

Oh yes. Savor the rich, creamy, hot cognitive dissonance.

Hah...it gets funnier...

My ass---principles---my ass---principles. Well we know what's going to win that debate.

On Monday, Obama struck back. "Now, let me be clear: I actually introduced legislation in the Senate before Senator Clinton even mentioned this that said we had to crack down on private contractors like Blackwater because I don't believe that they should be able to run amok and put our own troops in danger, get paid three or four times or ten times what our soldiers are getting paid. I am the one who has been opposed to those operators. Senator Clinton is a late comer to that. But you know this is what happens during political season and I understand it."

[wmbwinn]

Our mercenaries are the usually unknown quiet forces.

Here is how it works:
1)Uncle Sam trains special forces men. They are taught the upmost level of destructive ability. They are the Seals, Green Berets, Rangers. They are the most effective units on the Earth. The Brits train equally effective troops. A few others do as well.
2)These men are underpaid based on what the market will bear
3)These men leave the armed forces of the USA just so that they can join Blackwater and other mercenary units.
4)These men are paid amounts like 100K to 250K per operation.
5)They are not affiliated with the USA officially.
6)They are used in many different ways
a)They are officially hired by the US government with pre-arrangements with the country they will enter (such as Iraq and Afghanistan). They are cleared ahead of time by the country they enter and by the USA that they bear no liability for their actions. They are the really effective units that go in without rules and act effectively. And the media is usually oblivious as the participating/approving government and the USA intend that their actions be not announced or known.
b)They are hired by the US government to enter places as an attacking force to hit single or small unit targets or specified hard targets. They go in with huge pre-paid salaries and are incredibly effective. If they are caught by the country they entered, the USA knows nothing about them, won't negotiate for their release, won't act if they are killed, won't give their families anything as to benefits like they would the family of an Army man killed in combat, and won't admit ever that they were the hiring force. These men are on their own and their reward is their huge payment.
c)They are hired by other governments and other interests. They might get hired by the government of Columbia to hit Cocaine/Drug Cartels for them. Again, they act as paid mercenaries with no government and no support.

Now, these groups are sold/given the best in equipment. They drive around in HumVees armored and armed to the hilt. They get the planes, tanks, guns, etc. that they need. And, they keep them after the job...

You don't know much about them on purpose. They are the worst sort of men to have to engage... They are the most effective... They can act in ways that other forces cannot. They are not bound by Geneva or any other laws. They are intentionally given complete relief from liability legally for their actions. And, if a group captures them and kills them... well that is the risk they take by taking the job and the money.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Our mercenaries are the usually unknown quiet forces.

Here is how it works:
1)Uncle Sam trains special forces men. They are taught the upmost level of destructive ability. They are the Seals, Green Berets, Rangers. They are the most effective units on the Earth. The Brits train equally effective troops. A few others do as well.
2)These men are underpaid based on what the market will bear
3)These men leave the armed forces of the USA just so that they can join Blackwater and other mercenary units.
4)These men are paid amounts like 100K to 250K per operation.
5)They are not affiliated with the USA officially.
6)They are used in many different ways
a)They are officially hired by the US government with pre-arrangements with the country they will enter (such as Iraq and Afghanistan). They are cleared ahead of time by the country they enter and by the USA that they bear no liability for their actions. They are the really effective units that go in without rules and act effectively. And the media is usually oblivious as the participating/approving government and the USA intend that their actions be not announced or known.
b)They are hired by the US government to enter places as an attacking force to hit single or small unit targets or specified hard targets. They go in with huge pre-paid salaries and are incredibly effective. If they are caught by the country they entered, the USA knows nothing about them, won't negotiate for their release, won't act if they are killed, won't give their families anything as to benefits like they would the family of an Army man killed in combat, and won't admit ever that they were the hiring force. These men are on their own and their reward is their huge payment.
c)They are hired by other governments and other interests. They might get hired by the government of Columbia to hit Cocaine/Drug Cartels for them. Again, they act as paid mercenaries with no government and no support.

Now, these groups are sold/given the best in equipment. They drive around in HumVees armored and armed to the hilt. They get the planes, tanks, guns, etc. that they need. And, they keep them after the job...

You don't know much about them on purpose. They are the worst sort of men to have to engage... They are the most effective... They can act in ways that other forces cannot. They are not bound by Geneva or any other laws. They are intentionally given complete relief from liability legally for their actions. And, if a group captures them and kills them... well that is the risk they take by taking the job and the money.

And these highly trained, highly effective men are the exact forces Obama wants to eliminate (except for when it comes to protecting his own ass overseas). He has said several times how unfair it is that they are paid so much more than our active duty troops.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by jefelump

And these highly trained, highly effective men are the exact forces Obama wants to eliminate (except for when it comes to protecting his own ass overseas). He has said several times how unfair it is that they are paid so much more than our active duty troops.

The only way to correct this is to increase the pay for special forces men and women such that they make at least 500K to 1 million per year...
Won't happen.
Besides, their anonymity and ability to ignore Geneva are their strengths...

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Our mercenaries are the usually unknown quiet forces.

Here is how it works:
1)Uncle Sam trains special forces men. They are taught the upmost level of destructive ability. They are the Seals, Green Berets, Rangers. They are the most effective units on the Earth. The Brits train equally effective troops. A few others do as well.
2)These men are underpaid based on what the market will bear
3)These men leave the armed forces of the USA just so that they can join Blackwater and other mercenary units.
4)These men are paid amounts like 100K to 250K per operation.
5)They are not affiliated with the USA officially.
6)They are used in many different ways
a)They are officially hired by the US government with pre-arrangements with the country they will enter (such as Iraq and Afghanistan). They are cleared ahead of time by the country they enter and by the USA that they bear no liability for their actions. They are the really effective units that go in without rules and act effectively. And the media is usually oblivious as the participating/approving government and the USA intend that their actions be not announced or known.
b)They are hired by the US government to enter places as an attacking force to hit single or small unit targets or specified hard targets. They go in with huge pre-paid salaries and are incredibly effective. If they are caught by the country they entered, the USA knows nothing about them, won't negotiate for their release, won't act if they are killed, won't give their families anything as to benefits like they would the family of an Army man killed in combat, and won't admit ever that they were the hiring force. These men are on their own and their reward is their huge payment.
c)They are hired by other governments and other interests. They might get hired by the government of Columbia to hit Cocaine/Drug Cartels for them. Again, they act as paid mercenaries with no government and no support.

Now, these groups are sold/given the best in equipment. They drive around in HumVees armored and armed to the hilt. They get the planes, tanks, guns, etc. that they need. And, they keep them after the job...

You don't know much about them on purpose. They are the worst sort of men to have to engage... They are the most effective... They can act in ways that other forces cannot. They are not bound by Geneva or any other laws. They are intentionally given complete relief from liability legally for their actions. And, if a group captures them and kills them... well that is the risk they take by taking the job and the money.

Wow. Why did you just blow their cover?

[wmbwinn]

nothing I said is a secret. You can read plenty of news articles about Blackwater and the debates about Blackwater.
And, after all the complaining about Blackwater, you can see that absolutely no action was taken against Blackwater and that Obama is asking Blackwater to lead the way in Afghanistan.