Obama needs to go to Iraq. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

scout · 05-28-2008, 02:45 PM

Obama to Iran?

Why does he refuse to go over to Iraq and see for himself rather than rely on heresay? I would be more likely to hear and believe his campaign argument that we are wasting time if he would go over and see for himself. As a future commander-in-chief you would think he would jump at the chance to go over and meet the all the officers and troops and see what is really happening rather than sit over here and arm chair quarterback the war or would it be detrimental to his campaign to go look for himself? So what's up with his refusal?

Willravel · 05-28-2008, 02:53 PM

We're not about to attack Iraq. If this was 2003, I'm sure Obama would be visiting Iraq to demonstrate that we don't need to go to war with them.

Maybe Obama doesn't want hundreds of troops to be pulled off their important duties so he can showboat in a market with a bullet-proof vest on?

dc_dux · 05-28-2008, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

Why does he refuse to go over to Iraq and see for himself rather than rely on heresay?

A Pentagon "managed" trip to Iraq for any member of Congress is just that...a carefully orchestrated and controlled show trip. They see what the Pentagon wants them to see. Trips by members of Congress w/o Pentagon and/or State Dept. control where they can "see for themselves" are virtually prohibited.

scout...did you believe McCain, after his last trip to Iraq, when he said it was safe to walk through the central market or neighborhoods of Baghad...while he was wearing body armor and surrounded by 100 armed escorts, with blackhawk helicopters overhead?

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dYVyMRBioJc&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dYVyMRBioJc&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
From March 2007

More:
Obama's trip to Iraq in 2006.

The State Department still discourages any civilians from traveling to Iraq (This information is current as of today, Wed May 28 2008).

ASU2003 · 05-28-2008, 03:37 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama did go over there. But not until the primaries are over.

Or maybe that is what Hilary wants to have happen. She would have a chance if he doesn't come back from Iraq.

dc_dux · 05-28-2008, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama did go over there. But not until the primaries are over.

I think he will as well...after the Democratic convention.

Then he should invite McCain to spend a day in the southside of Chicago. I wonder when the last time McCain visited an inner city in the US and saw for himself and spoke with the citizens.

The_Jazz · 05-28-2008, 04:28 PM

Thread title for 8/24/08: "Obama's Campaign Stunt in Baghdad". I can't lay odds on who the OP will be yet, but that's the title.

Those who would trash him for doing it are the same that are trashing him for not. He's in an active campaign. McCain, at this point, isn't. Seems pretty clear that he needs to focus on getting the nomination first to me. But that's just my opinion.

Tully Mars · 05-28-2008, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Thread title for 8/24/08: "Obama's Campaign Stunt in Baghdad". I can't lay odds on who the OP will be yet, but that's the title.

Those who would trash him for doing it are the same that are trashing him for not. He's in an active campaign. McCain, at this point, isn't. Seems pretty clear that he needs to focus on getting the nomination first to me. But that's just my opinion.

Ditto.

ratbastid · 05-28-2008, 07:37 PM

Jazz, Tully, you're missing the high strategery here. He's getting the nomination by convincing everyone that he's already got it. He's campaigning by not campaigning! It's so ZEN!

Tully Mars · 05-28-2008, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Jazz, Tully, you're missing the high strategery here. He's getting the nomination by convincing everyone that he's already got it. He's campaigning by not campaigning! It's so ZEN!

I disagree, he's campaigning hard at the moment to win the nom.

After that if he is the nom. he may well go to Iraq. But given the fact it will be a Bush Admin. directed tour I'm not sure I see the benefit. Basically I see his going or not going a lose lose for him. McCain is smart to keep pushing this issue.

host · 05-28-2008, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

Obama to Iran?

Why does he refuse to go over to Iraq and see for himself rather than rely on heresay?

The short answer, scout, is because making a trip to Iraq, is total fucking waste of Obama's time.

Quote:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...27/acd.01.html
ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES

Former White House Press Secretary Slams Bush Administration; Obama's World War II Gaffe

Aired May 27, 2008 - 22:00 ET

....Senator McCain has been slamming Obama on his Iraq policy. McCain says Obama is out of touch with what is really happening on the ground in Iraq. Obama paints McCain as, well, simply being out of touch.

Time for a reality check with CNN's Michael Ware live in Baghdad, and, once again, Frances Townsend, former White House homeland security adviser and CNN national security contributor.

Michael, Senator McCain invited Obama to travel to -- to Iraq, saying he was looking for the opportunity to -- quote, unquote -- "educate Obama." Realistically -- I mean, obviously, there's a lot of policy involved. But what exactly would the two be able to see? How accurate is the information that is passed -- how beneficial are these kind of -- these kind of trips?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Anderson, I mean, obviously, there's a great need for education about the situation here in Iraq.

You cannot pull out without serious consequences, nor can you stroll the streets of Baghdad. So, there's questions to be raised with both campaigns there.

<h3>Now, like any U.S. officials that come to this country, any campaign members, anyone running for office who comes to this country is going to see the rooftops of houses as they fly over them, perhaps some desert as they whisk over the cop of that, and the inside of U.S. bases and the U.S. Embassy, where they're bombarded with briefings and PowerPoint slides.

They will be totally divorced from the Iraqi reality. And any Iraqi officials they will talk to, they're certainly not going to be straight -shooting. They haven't been since the war began. Why would they start now? It's not in their interests to do so.

They certainly won't get a real feel for the fact that 90,000 former insurgents now on the U.S. payroll are protecting large chunks of the country for America, while other large chunks of the country are protected by Iranian-backed militias who are pursuing Iranian interests, as well as their own.

So, really, it's going to be a very skewed picture that anyone could hope to get -- Anderson. </h3>

COOPER: Frances, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, says al Qaeda in Iraq -- and I quote -- "has never been closer to defeat than they are now."

At this point, though, how much of the violence is really due to al Qaeda in Iraq, and how much is due to sectarian actors and other forces?

TOWNSEND: Well, Anderson, it's important to be clear about the facts.

All violence, whether it's sectarian or al Qaeda, is down across the board. These are the lowest levels of security incidents in four years that they're seeing right now. This is progress.

Now, al Qaeda has said, in their own statement, that Iraq was the central battle and that they couldn't lose it. Well, they're back on their heels. It will take a sustained effort by Iraqi forces to maintain that. We have seen the recent progress by Iraqi forces. They are conducting clearing and holding operations on their own, without their American advisers. All of this is positive, but they have to do it over the long term. COOPER: Well, I mean, in Basra, they needed serious backup from both British and U.S. forces. In fact, that was really instrumental in turning the tide there in Basra to the degree that it has been turned.

But the question is, I mean, the White House and John McCain and others like to focus on al Qaeda and talk about al Qaeda in Iraq. Do you have a sense of how much al Qaeda is really -- I mean, of a percentage of attacks, how much is al Qaeda? How much are other forces?

TOWNSEND: You know, I'm not really -- I'm not clear on what the actual percentage breakdown is.

COOPER: OK.

TOWNSEND: I will say this to you, though. The large-scale attacks against civilians are down. But the important part to that success is going to be maintaining it.

COOPER: Michael, let me ask you the question. Al Qaeda, compared to the other forces killing folks in Iraq, where does -- what's the percentage; do you know?

WARE: Well, in terms of fighters in the field, they would be lucky to be 2 percent of those carrying weapons in this country, Anderson.

Yes, they're the guys responsible for the spectacular attacks, the suicide bombings and car bombings that just slaughter innocent civilians. That's true. That's got great political impact. But, in terms of the day-to-day grind, they're virtually nonexistent. They're barely attacking U.S. troops. They're more focused on killing other Iraqis. They're too busy trying to launch a war with the Shia. They're too busy, under pressure, to be able to continue operating.

And, look, let's face it. They were given Iraq on a -- on a platter for their next platform after Afghanistan. They had their moment. Now they have been withered down to this gnarly operating series of terrorist cells that they were always designed to be. They're essentially going to be a stone in the shoe of this society. What they are in countless societies across the world.

They're not really the war here, and they haven't been for a long time, if they ever were. The real war here is the competition between America and Iran for influence and an attempt to hold this region together without fracturing it completely, Anderson.

COOPER: Frances, do you agree with Michael?

TOWNSEND: Well, to Michael's point, a successful end to the conflict in Iraq must be that Iraq is a stable democracy that can secure its people and its borders. That includes not only from al Qaeda but from Iran.

COOPER: Frances, we appreciate you being on the show, first time. Thanks for being on.

Michael Ware, always good to talk to you. Stay safe, Michael. ....

I posted all of the following shortly after it happened. The contrast of the VIP visits...who had to sneak into Iraq unnannounced in advance, and who was able to make a much more routine, pre-announced visit.

If Cheney and McCain were prisoners of their own security precautions, what would Obama hope to see that he was not meant to see? Would he go off on his own?

The US has lost this, scout. The Iranian president glaringly demonstrated that he is the one who can announce a near normal visit to Iraq, and then experience a near normal visit. He showed that iraq is his....not Cheney and McCain's territory. This is over....the only people who can't see it are the supporters of failed Bush policy.... Obama is not in that camp.

Quote:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/29212.html
Visit by Iran's president shows depth of Iraq's divisions
By Leila Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Sunday, March 2, 2008

BAGHDAD — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday became the first Iranian head of state to visit Iraq in three decades and immediately became the focus of demonstrations that underscored Iraq's sectarian split.

In Fallujah, Sunni Muslim protesters demonstrated against his visit, calling him the killer of Iraqi children. Iraq's Sunni vice president showed up late for a reception for Ahmadinejad hosted by Iraq's Kurdish president.

Meanwhile, Iraq's Shiite ruling elite, many of whom had been taken refuge during Saddam Hussein's time in Shiite Iran, listened to Ahmadinejad without need of translation into Arabic, clearly comfortable hearing his Farsi.

American officials stayed far away from the visiting Iranian delegation. At a joint press conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, Ahmadinejad claimed that "Iraqis don't like Americans." Maliki didn't challenge the assertion.

Ahmadinejad's trip was a visible sign of what have been growing economic and cultural ties between the two countries since American-led forces toppled Saddam. Iranian economic investment is growing, especially in southern Iraq, millions of Iranians visit Iraq's holy cities of Najaf and Karbala on religious pilgrimages, and Iraqi officials frequently travel to Tehran and other Iranian cities. Iraq's most influential political party, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, was founded in Iran.

The visit also was the first by any regional leader since the end of Saddam's rule and while President Bush and British prime ministers also have visited, Ahmadinejad was the first leader to receive the full trappings of a state visit.

He was met at Baghdad International Airport by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari and Maliki's national security advisor, Mowaffak al Rubaie. He was whisked from the airport in a black BMW to President Jalal Talabani's compound, where a marching band welcomed him with the Iranian and Iraqi national anthems and a series of other marches, including an American one, Colonel Boogie.

Iraqi officials lined up to welcome the visiting president, but the Sunni vice-president, Tarik al Hashemi, was noticeably absent. He appeared about 50 minutes after Ahmadinejad arrived. There was no explanation for his delayed arrival.

No U.S. soldiers were in sight near Talabani's home and security was provided by Kurdish soldiers known as the peshmerga.

At an afternoon press conference with Maliki, Ahmadinejad dismissed longstanding U.S. accusations that Iran trains, funds and arms Shiite militias in hopes of destabilizing Iraq.

"You can tell Mr. Bush that accusing others will increase the problems for America in the region and will not solve the problem," he said. "The Americans have to accept the facts of the region. Iraqi people do not like Americans."

When asked if Iran and Iraq trusted one another, Ahmadinejad took another swipe at the Americans.

"If you look to the two peoples, Iranian and Iraqi, we can see they have a joint history, culture and geography," he said. "If they don't trust each other in spite of all these characteristics in common can they trust countries which are 12,000 kilometers away from Iraq and Iran?"

Maliki welcomed Ahmadinejad and called his visit "the first visit of its kind." He said the visit would "deepen" the relationship between the two nations.

"We believe that there is not stability except through understanding and discussion, " he said.

Iran has long touted its historical, geographic and cultural connection to Iraq as more powerful than the tens of thousands of U.S. troops here. Iranian officials claim that the continued U.S. military presence is the real destabilizing factor.

But Sunni Muslims bristled at Ahmadinejad's visit. In downtown Fallujah, which at one time was the center of the Sunni-dominated insurgency, about 400 people held signs and chanted anti-Iran slogans.

"The teacher's association protest the visit of the Iranian president, killer of Iraqi children," one sign read. Said another, "We demand the Iranian president stop supporting the militias which are killing the Iraqi people." Others accused the group of supporting the Sunni insurgent group, Al Qaida and another accused Iran of stealing Iraqi oil.

<h3>Last week, 500 people demonstrated against the visit in Diyala province, and Arab leaders in Kirkuk rejected the visit in a written statement.</h3>

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/...q.ahmadinejad/
updated 5:57 p.m. EST, Sun March 2, 2008
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in Baghdad Sunday for the start of a historic two-day trip, said "visiting Iraq without the dictator is a good thing."

The Shiite-led Iraqi government rolled out the red carpet, literally, for Ahmadinejad as he became the first Iranian president to visit Iraq, a country that was a bitter enemy when Saddam Hussein's Sunni government was in power.

Ahmadinejad, at a joint news conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, said the trip "opens a new chapter in bilateral ties with Iraq."

"We have had good talks in a friendly and constructive environment," Ahmadinejad said. "We have the same understanding of things and the two parties are determined to strengthen their political, economic and cultural cooperation."

Later in the day, Ahmadinejad met Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Both al-Maliki and Talabani have made official trips to Iran since taking office.

At a joint news conference with al-Maliki in Baghdad's Green Zone, Ahmadinejad did not hide his disdain for the United States and its leadership.

"(U.S. President) Bush always accuses others without evidence and this increases problems," Ahmadinejad said. "The Americans have to understand that Iraqi people do not like America." Watch Ahmadinejad comment on the U.S. presence in Iraq »

The United States has accused Iran of supporting some insurgent groups in Iraq, including supplying EFPs, the deadliest and most sophisticated type of roadside bomb.

<h3>Ahmadinejad shunned the security measures followed by many other leaders on visits to Baghdad, riding from Baghdad's airport in a civilian-style sedan -- and not an armored military vehicle or helicopter -- to central Baghdad.

His official welcome and meeting with Talabani was at the presidential house outside of the heavily-fortified International Zone where most high-level events in Baghdad are held.</h3>

Ahmadinejad said a unified and powerful Iraq is in the best interest of Iran and all its neighbors.

"Iraqi people are passing through a critical situation but as we know, the Iraqi people will overcome the situation and the Iraq of tomorrow will be a powerful, developed and unique Iraq," he said.

Ahmadinejad was warmly welcomed in Baghdad. An Iraqi military band played the Iranian and Iraqi national anthems as Ahmadinejad and Talabani stood side-by-side at the end of a long red carpet outside the presidential house. Ahmadinejad then walked down the carpet where he was greeted by two Iraqi children with flowers and a long line of Iraqi officials.

Ahead of his trip, Ahmadinejad said it would "contribute to regional peace and security" and stressed that the people of Iran and Iraq share close bonds.

"My visit to Iraq is to the benefit of all countries, because if there's peace, if we establish peace and put an end to (U.S.) occupation, that will be to the benefit of all countries," the Iranian leader told Tehran-based Press TV before his departure.

Although Iraq invaded Iran in September 1980 after a territorial dispute, and the two countries fought an eight-year war, Ahmadinejad said the nations share a common history.

"The people of Iran and Iraq have close bonds, and there are many holy shrines in Iraq," he said. "People travel there, so we have age-old, historical bonds and common civilization."

He noted that Iraq has a new government, and is an "independent state."

"We should help them," he added.....

Compare the accounts above of the visit to Iraq by the Iranian president, announced publicly at least a week before his arrival in Iraq. He traveled by unarmored sedan from Baghdad airport, he spent a small amount of time inside the Green Zone, and despite Sunni protests of his visit to Iraq, in other citiies, he slept outside the Green Zone as well.....with the back to back "surprise arrivals to Iraq by McCain and Cheney, "for security reasons", and the heavy security surrounding them, as they spent almost all of their visits inside the Green Zone:

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n3941689.shtml
McCain Makes Unannounced Trip To Iraq

BAGHDAD, March 16, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS/AP) Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, arrived in Baghdad on Sunday for a visit with Iraqi and U.S. diplomatic and military officials.

The trip by McCain, who has linked his political future to U.S. military success in the nearly five-year-old war, coincided with the 20th anniversary of a horrific chemical weapons attack in northern Iraq.

McCain met with Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh and planned to meet with Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, according to the U.S. Embassy. Further details of McCain's visit, which had been anticipated, were not being released for security reasons, the embassy said.....

...McCain was combative toward reporters' questions in the heavily guarded Green Zone, and responded testily to a question about his comment that it was safe to walk some Baghdad streets. He later acknowledged traveling with armed U.S. military escorts.

Violence has dropped throughout the capital since, with an influx of some 30,000 additional U.S. soldiers sent to Iraq last year. The U.S. military has said attacks have fallen by about 60 percent since last February....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...aq-797144.html

Independent.co.uk
McCain upbeat about war on visit to Iraq
By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad
Tuesday, 18 March 2008

Helicopter gunships circled overhead and checkpoints choked traffic in the streets, but the US Vice-President, Dick Cheney, and the Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, were in Baghdad yesterday to give upbeat accounts of improving security.

Mr Cheney said he sensed "phenomenal changes" and "dramatic" security gains since he last visited 10 months ago. "I am happy to say," said Mr McCain, "Americans are more and more understanding of the success of this strategy of the surge".

Contrary to these optimistic forecasts, a female suicide bomber blew herself up in the Shia holy city of Kerbala yesterday, killing at least 40 people.

With their heavy security and meetings with Iraqis mostly confined to the Green Zone, it would scarcely have been evident to either American politician that the Iraqi capital is divided into hostile townships of Sunni and Shia. The top US commander General David Petraeus complained last week that security gains had not been matched "by sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation".

This is scarcely surprising. Paradoxically, it was largely because Sunni and Shia Iraqis had come to hate each other more than they did the Americans that the Sunni insurgents switched sides at the end of 2007. They formed al-Sahwa (the Awakening Councils) and allied themselves with their former American enemies.

They did so because of hostility to al-Qa'ida, but above all because the minority Sunni community was being overwhelmed by the Shia. The formation of the 80,000-strong al-Sahwa militia is the most important reason for the optimism of Mr Cheney and Mr McCain. Armed with Kalashnikov assault rifles, the brown-uniformed militiamen belonging to the movement search cars at the entrance and exit points to Sunni areas.

Mr McCain said yesterday that "al-Qa'ida are on the run, but they are not defeated". But in parts of Baghdad al-Sahwa is often al-Qa'ida in Iraq in a new guise rather than a reaction against it.

"Al-Qa'ida think they can become an official militia through al-Sahwa," said Ibrahim Mohammed Abdullah, 35, an al-Sahwa militiaman in the al-Khadra district that was formerly an al-Qa'ida stronghold. "They can gather information on the police commandos and tip off anybody who is going to be arrested."

Other al-Sahwa members confirm this. Saleh Jabar Mohsin, 21, a former student, explained the recent wave of assassinations of al-Sahwa members. "We know," he said, "that anybody from al-Sahwa who has been killed, was shot because he really was working against al-Qa'ida or other Islamic groups. A second reason might be that he had refused to play a dual role [working for both the Americans and al-Qa'ida].".....

Quote:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
Cheney makes surprise visit to Iraq

Mar 17 04:25 AM US/Eastern

US Vice President Dick Cheney swept into Baghdad on an unannounced visit Monday, looking to highlight security gains and promote elusive political progress days before the war enters its sixth year.
Minutes after he arrived, an explosion rocked central Baghdad, following a roadside bombing that killed a policeman, underscoring the violence that still grips the nation almost five years after the US-led invasion of Iraq.

Cheney met the top US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and the US ambassador Ryan Crocker, and was to hold talks with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and other senior Iraqi political figures.

The unheralded visit, shrouded in secrecy and blanketed with security, came as Cheney opened a nine-day visit to the Middle East and beyond, with scheduled stops in Oman, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the West Bank, and Turkey.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/30645.html

....Cheney spent Monday in a tightly choreographed hopscotch, moving at least six times for high-level meetings. In the fortress-like Green Zone compound, which houses the U.S. and Iraqi headquarters, he met Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki; Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq; and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

Maliki said his talks with Cheney focused on negotiations for a long-term U.S.-Iraqi security agreement that would replace the United Nations mandate for foreign troops, which expires at the end of the year.

Traveling under military guard along roads that had been swept for bombs and were lined with security forces, Cheney ventured a mile or so outside the Green Zone to call on Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Abdelaziz al Hakim, the head of the powerful Iranian-backed Shiite party known as the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council.....

Do they think we are stupid? Neither Cheney nor McCain has an Iraq or Iran, or a middle east policy that is "reality based". <h3>By the description of his state visit to Iraq, the Iranian president demonstrated that his country is the winner in the Iraq war. He pre-announced his visit, and conducted himself in Iraq without fear. Cheney and McCain arrived in Iraq like thieves in the night, continuing to hide behind heavy military escort, or inside a fortress, during their entire visits, even as they praised and took credit for the improving security conditions.</h3>

As Glenn Greenwald wrote about McCain's speech:

Quote:

.....Just as one would expect, given their identical worldviews, Bush and McCain burdened with exactly the same absurd contradictions. Hence: the key to our security is to undermine Muslims' resentment towards the U.S., which we'll accomplish by occupying Iraq indefinitely and threatening Iran. "Victory" in Iraq means a government supported by the majority of Iraqis and yet which somehow is simultaneously a "key U.S. ally in the war on terror" and a friend of Israel.....

......We should continue to interfere in Middle East countries (thus ensuring increased anti-Americanism) and simultaneously spread democracy (thus ensuring the election of anti-American political leaders). We must rein in government spending while pursuing hegemonic policies that we can't remotely afford to pay for, etc. etc.....

Isn't this an apt description of the Bush/Cheney/McCain disconnect?

scout · 05-29-2008, 02:21 AM

A total fuckin' waste of time? Wow. How fuckin' disconnected from reality has half of the Democratic party become? What a fuckin' elitist attitude. No fucking wonder his campaign has trouble connecting with the common people.

Obama makes the war one of his campaign cornerstones. He hasn't been there since 2006. He has roughly a 50/50 chance of becoming the next commander in chief but it's a fucking waste of his time to at least visit the troops and see how the war is progressing. Yes you are correct a DoD directed state visit won't give any real details other than what the military wants him to see but its the mental fact he was there supporting the troops. Maybe he needs to go over there and give a moving emotional campaign speech and promise those ladies and gents that make up our occupying force he will soon have their collectives asses out of there. Maybe he can give all the Iraqis that will undoubtedly face execution by having their heads chopped off when he brings the troops home his regards and a personal apology ahead of time while he's there, ya know maybe shake their hand or give them a hug 'cause they are gonna need it. He could also save us some tax dollars and have a meeting with the Iranian president while he's in the area. Maybe have tea at one of their nuclear facilities and check on construction progress.

Talk about the Bush/Cheney/McCain disconnect? It seems the other half has become equally disconnected from the opposite end of the spectrum. Son of a bitch I was really hoping we would have some sane middle of the road option this November, Obviously that ain't gonna happen so now we will once again have to vote for the "lessor of the two evils".

dc_dux · 05-29-2008, 02:36 AM

scout...I expect that Obama will visit Iraq after the Democratic convention...but there is no reason for him to respond to McCain's attempt to bait him into going together so that McCain can "educate" him on the progress in Iraq.

Lets not pretend that a trip by either candidate to Iraq is anything more than another campaign stop...but I agree, Obama should go talk to the troops - on his terms, not McCain's -they are the voters with the most on the line.

I do find it amusing that McCain is trying to pass himself off as more informed about Iraq.

Obama seemed pretty well informed at the Senate hearings last month with Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker.

It is McCain, who on several occasions, has confused al Queda in Iraq with the Shiite militia/insurgents.

It is McCain who told the American people that it was safe to walk through the Baghdad central market when the facts on the ground were entirely different.

And it was Obama in 2002, months before Bush's invasion of Iraq, who correctly understood the likely outcome:

"...Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength....

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale ...will only fan the flames of the Middle East....and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda"

roachboy · 05-29-2008, 03:44 AM

scout: your entire post presupposes that the current "strategy" in iraq is rational--when it isn't--and necessary, simply because it exists. the motivation for these assumptions appears to be little more than conservative partisanship. what i think is interesting in your post is the repetition of the entire conservative-specific set of assumptions that enable continued support for the iraq debacle and the administration responsible for it:

a) the attempt to characterize criticism of that policy as elitist positions you as "defender of the common man"--i confess to being baffled as to how that fits in with anything else in your post. you hear this alot though from the right--the curious claim that "authentic america" is made up entirely of petit bourgeois reactionaries.

b) a wholly irrational assumption that you and those who support similar politics views have a monopoly on "what's really going on" in iraq. what exactly is the reality of a war?
this is a serious question, if you think about it.
for example, how is the "reality" of war not logistics?
if you consider what a war is and where the majority of activity connected to it happens, it is mostly in shifting things from one place to another.
but maybe the history channel lets you conservative-types define reality in whatever manly way is convenient for transient argument purposes.
so reality would be what you like, and not anything else.
so what you're really saying is obama should go to iraq so that he would end up agreeing with your claims.

c) the american position on iran has made no fucking sense from the outset. the is compounded by the simple fact--one which is self-evident to everyone except that tiny segment of the population that substitutes conservative filtering devices for anything remotely like an analysis of what's happening on the ground, to the extent that any of us know about it in this information-controlled, filtered and packaged continual public-relations farce of a system---by the simple fact that the administration had NO strategy going into iraq. the wolfowitz doctrine WAS the strategy. it is mind-boggling to think about that--not that i expect you to--but if you do, it's amazing stuff. given that there was no strategy, it follows that there was and could be nothing but reaction along the way--the american position on iran has been nothing but reactive. it makes no sense. the business about the iranian nuclear program has fuck all to do with anything--it is a red herring--but if you and your conservativeland buddies ARE concerned about it--don't you think that reducing iran's sense of being-threatened by the united states would be a good step forward in undercutting the rationale for such ambiguity as exists about their program?

but that would require you think in terms not unlike those jimmy carter laid out about iran last week. and carter would be an elitist, so his positions are ruled out a priori.

Tully Mars · 05-29-2008, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

scout: your entire post presupposes that the current "strategy" in iraq is rational--when it isn't--and necessary, simply because it exists.

I caught a Daily Show the other day with Fareed Zakaria (I like him) he and Jon were discussing the current global situation and the US' role in it. I think Fareed was plugging a book about world growth and it's effect on the US. Basically he said the US used to be #1 in many areas- manufacturing, education etc... And now we're really only #1 when it comes to military capabilities. Not the largest military that, by far, is China. Fareed then quoted one of my favorite Mark Twain quotes "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

The current "strategy" isn't working. Oh, I know they keep telling us what a success the "surge" is and was. But there's no way to sustain it and I question just how well it really is working. For some reason I don't completely trust this Admin. or what it says. To me the "surge" is nothing more then playing whack a mole with more people. We can't keep this up. Unless we start drafting people we're going to run out of troops. Or the troops currently serving will be spending more and more time "in country."

IMO, we need to stop looking at every problem as a nail.

Derwood · 05-29-2008, 05:56 AM

I don't think it would be a waste of time at all. whether he's getting the "real picture" over there or not, it's important for him to at least talk to people. It's also essential for his campaign, as it would take another bullet out of McCain's gun come the national elections

The_Jazz · 05-29-2008, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

I don't think it would be a waste of time at all. whether he's getting the "real picture" over there or not, it's important for him to at least talk to people. It's also essential for his campaign, as it would take another bullet out of McCain's gun come the national elections

I agree completely. But why is it so important that he go NOW? As ratbastid pointed out, he doesn't have the nomination yet. It's by no means assured that he will get the nomination, although it looks that way. Hillary pointed that out in a particularly ham-fisted way last week. If he has a major setback and superdelegates start jumping ship, going to Iraq could kill his campaign.

Again, once the convention is over, it's completely different, but he's still campaigning against Hillary. He'll start campaigning against McCain more and more, but there's a balancing act that he has to maintain for the next few weeks.

Scout, are you one of the ones who will be talking about his publicity stunt when he goes over there again in July/August/September?

scout · 05-29-2008, 01:27 PM

No you wont hear me bitchin' when he does go over unless he waits until August or September to go. I absolutely think he should go over there and the sooner the better. He should have been over there several times or at minimum at least once since he announced his candidacy and especially since he is making the war one of the centerpieces of his campaign.

Willravel · 05-29-2008, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

No you wont hear me bitchin' when he does go over unless he waits until August or September to go. I absolutely think he should go over there and the sooner the better. He should have been over there several times or at minimum at least once since he announced his candidacy and especially since he is making the war one of the centerpieces of his campaign.

My little brother knows more about Iraq than John McCain and he's never even been out of the country.

The_Jazz · 05-29-2008, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

No you wont hear me bitchin' when he does go over unless he waits until August or September to go. I absolutely think he should go over there and the sooner the better. He should have been over there several times or at minimum at least once since he announced his candidacy and especially since he is making the war one of the centerpieces of his campaign.

Can I at least get a concession that he's had other things on his plate that seem more important? Going there in the midst of a tough, drawn-out campaign doesn't seem like the best way to garner votes in, say, Oregon.

Once the convention is over, I am sure you'll see him there.

scout · 05-29-2008, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

scout: your entire post presupposes that the current "strategy" in iraq is rational--when it isn't--and necessary, simply because it exists. the motivation for these assumptions appears to be little more than conservative partisanship. what i think is interesting in your post is the repetition of the entire conservative-specific set of assumptions that enable continued support for the iraq debacle and the administration responsible for it:

a) the attempt to characterize criticism of that policy as elitist positions you as "defender of the common man"--i confess to being baffled as to how that fits in with anything else in your post. you hear this alot though from the right--the curious claim that "authentic america" is made up entirely of petit bourgeois reactionaries.

So it really truly is a fucking waste of time for Obama to visit the troops? And thats not an elitist attitude? Thanks for setting me straight.

Quote:

b) a wholly irrational assumption that you and those who support similar politics views have a monopoly on "what's really going on" in iraq. what exactly is the reality of a war?
this is a serious question, if you think about it.
for example, how is the "reality" of war not logistics?
if you consider what a war is and where the majority of activity connected to it happens, it is mostly in shifting things from one place to another.
but maybe the history channel lets you conservative-types define reality in whatever manly way is convenient for transient argument purposes.
so reality would be what you like, and not anything else.
so what you're really saying is obama should go to iraq so that he would end up agreeing with your claims.

I made no claims as to what was actually happening on the ground. I haven't been there and have no plans to travel there. However if I was running for the President of the United States and there was a pretty good chance I would be elected you can bet your ass I would be there every chance I got just to see for myself what needed to be done. I don't know whats really happening over there and neither do you. We can both produce witnesses and articles posted somewhere on the net supporting our particular viewpoints but the reality is you aren't there and neither am I and we ain't got a fuckin' clue so we probably better keep our mouths shut and hope for the best for our friends and family that is over there.

Quote:

c) the american position on iran has made no fucking sense from the outset. the is compounded by the simple fact--one which is self-evident to everyone except that tiny segment of the population that substitutes conservative filtering devices for anything remotely like an analysis of what's happening on the ground, to the extent that any of us know about it in this information-controlled, filtered and packaged continual public-relations farce of a system---by the simple fact that the administration had NO strategy going into iraq. the wolfowitz doctrine WAS the strategy. it is mind-boggling to think about that--not that i expect you to--but if you do, it's amazing stuff. given that there was no strategy, it follows that there was and could be nothing but reaction along the way--the american position on iran has been nothing but reactive. it makes no sense. the business about the iranian nuclear program has fuck all to do with anything--it is a red herring--but if you and your conservativeland buddies ARE concerned about it--don't you think that reducing iran's sense of being-threatened by the united states would be a good step forward in undercutting the rationale for such ambiguity as exists about their program?

but that would require you think in terms not unlike those jimmy carter laid out about iran last week. and carter would be an elitist, so his positions are ruled out a priori.

Our policy regarding Iran has been fucked for a long time, since Jimmy Carter himself was in office. He in fact started the Iranian problem and had no clue how to fix it after he fucked it all up. Funny you should mention him and a wise solution to the Iranian problem in the same sentence. It's like suddenly after 30 years of hindsight he can see clearly now, lets just give up the worlds nuclear secrets and everything will be all better. The Isreali state has nukes so it's ok for the Iranians to want them to. He was an idiot then and he is still an idiot today, nothing has changed. / threadjack

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Can I at least get a concession that he's had other things on his plate that seem more important? Going there in the midst of a tough, drawn-out campaign doesn't seem like the best way to garner votes in, say, Oregon.

Once the convention is over, I am sure you'll see him there.

I feel he's had it pretty well wrapped up for quite awhile, since before the Indiana/North Carolina primaries and his campaign managers must feel the same way because sometime before those primaries they began shifting the focus of the campaign away from Hillery and onto McCain. Now I will concede he may not have had enough time to make the actual trip over but he's had ample time to get it on his schedule or at least start talking about making a trip over to visit the troops don't you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

My little brother knows more about Iraq than John McCain and he's never even been out of the country.

Yea yea I'm sure it runs in the family

The_Jazz · 05-29-2008, 02:02 PM

Scout, the thing is that he could be headed over tomorrow and we'll never know until he's on the ground. That's the way the security has to work over there, and every single politician I've seen visit a war zone travels the same way - unannounced.

scout · 05-29-2008, 04:23 PM

Yea I know but then when it's turning into something this big chances are someone would "leak" something just to keep it from getting too out of hand.

roachboy · 05-29-2008, 05:05 PM

jimmy carter started the fucked up american relation to iran?
jesus, scout--have you heard of the shah? know who put him into and maintained him in power from 1953 onward?
obviously not.
do some research.
what happened under carter's watch is what we might call blowback.
history's hard sometimes.

Tully Mars · 05-29-2008, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

history's hard sometimes.

It's gets much easier when you're rewriting it.

Willravel · 05-29-2008, 05:44 PM

I'll argue this as a neo-con.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

So it really truly is a fucking waste of time for Obama to visit the troops? And thats not an elitist attitude? Thanks for setting me straight.

Elitist is wasting the time of the troops, pulling them off their important missions to spread freedom and democracy, and stop terrorists. Obama going to Iraq is like giving al Qeada a nuclear bomb and a google map of the White House, then spitting on the star-spangled banner after burning it.

If he really wants to talk to a soldier to get the real stories about Iraq and Afghanistan, he should talk to the soldiers who are being shipped in. I'm sure debriefing a few of our troops could really give him a better understanding of what's going on over there.

aceventura3 · 05-30-2008, 07:06 AM

Perhaps he should go just to show he has no fear or concerns about going. Often, visits, orchestrated or not are not for the benefit of the person visiting, but for those who are there. Also, he thinks we are not safer because of the war in Iraq, I think the facts are not consistent with that view.

Here is some data from todays IBD editorial page:

Quote:

Empirically, however, it seems beyond dispute that something has made us safer since 2001. Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the U.S. and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing.

Some perspective here is required. While most Americans may not have been paying attention, a considerable number of terrorist attacks on America and American interests abroad were launched from the 1980s forward, too many of which were successful.

What follows is a partial history:

1988

February: Marine Corps Lt. Colonel Higgens, chief of the United Nations Truce Force, was kidnapped and murdered by Hezbollah.

December: Pan Am flight 103 from London to New York was blown up over Scotland, killing 270 people, including 35 from Syracuse University and a number of American military personnel.

1991

November: American University in Beirut bombed.

1993

January: A Pakistani terrorist opened fire outside CIA headquarters, killing two agents and wounding three.

February: World Trade Center bombed, killing six and injuring more than 1,000.

1995

January: Operation Bojinka, Osama bin Laden's plan to blow up 12 airliners over the Pacific Ocean, discovered.

November: Five Americans killed in attack on a U.S. Army office in Saudi Arabia.

1996

June: Truck bomb at Khobar Towers kills 19 American servicemen and injures 240.

June: Terrorist opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one.

1997

February: Palestinian opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one and wounding more than a dozen.

November: Terrorists murder four American oil company employees in Pakistan.

1998

January: U.S. Embassy in Peru bombed.

August: Simultaneous bomb attacks on U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed more than 300 people and injured over 5,000.

1999

October: Egypt Air flight 990 crashed off the coast of Massachusetts, killing 100 Americans among the more than 200 on board; the pilot yelled "Allahu Akbar!" as he steered the airplane into the ocean.

2000

October: A suicide boat exploded next to the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 American sailors and injuring 39.

2001

September: Terrorists with four hijacked airplanes kill about 3,000 Americans in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

December: Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber," tries to blow up a transatlantic flight, but is stopped by passengers.

The Sept. 11 attack was a propaganda triumph for al-Qaida, celebrated by a dismaying number of Muslims around the world. Everyone expected that it would draw more Muslims to bin Laden's cause and that more such attacks would follow.

In fact, though, what happened was quite different: The pace of successful jihadist attacks against the U.S. slowed, decelerated further after the onset of the Iraq War, and has now dwindled to essentially zero.

Here is the record:

2002

October: Diplomat Laurence Foley murdered in Jordan, in an operation planned, directed and financed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, perhaps with the complicity of Saddam's government.

2003

May: Suicide bombers killed 10 Americans, and killed and wounded many others, at housing compounds for Westerners in Saudi Arabia.

October: More bombings of U.S. housing compounds in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killed 26 and injured 160.

2004

There were no successful attacks inside the U.S. or against American interests abroad.

2005

There were no successful attacks inside the U.S. or against American interests abroad.

2006

There were no successful attacks inside the U.S. or against American interests abroad.

2007

There were no successful attacks inside the U.S. or against American interests abroad.

2008

So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the U.S. or against American interests abroad.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...96864997227353

dc_dux · 05-30-2008, 07:17 AM

ace...the IBD editorial is contrary to every recent national security estimate since the invasion of Iraq.

But of course, we all know that an IBD editorial is more objective and informed than the collected assessments of the entire US intelligence apparatus.

From another thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I generally form my own opinions and do my own thinking.

ace...I would respectfully disagree. What I see time and again is a mouthpiece that regurgitates IBD editiorials.

flstf · 05-30-2008, 07:35 AM

IMHO Obama going to Iraq now would just be political pandering although it might be good for his campaign if he could dodge a couple of sniper bullets.

aceventura3 · 05-30-2008, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...the IBD editorial is contrary to every recent national security estimate since the invasion of Iraq.

Is the data accurate? If not how?

Quote:

But of course, we all know that an IBD editorial is more objective and informed than the collected assessments of the entire US intelligence apparatus.

The point is not the editorial view of the data, but the data. I know there are different way to look at this question. At what point do you want to focus on that rather than the ad hominem argument.

Quote:

From another thread:

ace...I would respectfully disagree. What I see time and again is a mouthpiece that regurgitates IBD editiorials.

Been through this. I read IBD daily. I enjoy the way they craft their editorials, they are fun to read. I generally agree with their point of view. I have found that data in the paper and on the editorial page to be accurate.

Do you have anything new regarding IBD? I am going to read the paper again tomorrow, if I come across something that I think will be of interest - guess what - I am going to post it. Your complaints, ad hominem arguments, and personal attacks wont matter. Come on, I know you have it in you - you can do better.

dc_dux · 05-30-2008, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Is the data accurate? If not how?

...The point is not the editorial view of the data, but the data. I know there are different way to look at this question. At what point do you want to focus on.

ace...the data (as is usually the case with IBD editorials) is cherry picked and incomplete...for the purpose of making an ambiguous conclusion ("something has made us safer...") fit the limited data presented.

Show a little intellectual curiosity and read SOURCE data and not just editorial opinions with a pre-determined bias with which you are likely to agree....if you are really interested in fully understanding the impact that our invasion and occupation of Iraq has had on "the terrorist threat" as assessed by the US intelligence community.

ace...if you want to go down this route again....start a new thread!

but dont expect me to rise to your latest "challenge" until you do your homework.

/end threadjack

Tully Mars · 05-30-2008, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Is the data accurate? If not how?

Well if you make a statement like:

2004-2008 So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the U.S. or against American interests abroad.

Are you saying we have no "interest" in the number of troops KIA in Iraq and Afghanistan so far this year?

Or are KIA's not successful attacks?

Or are you completely cherry picking the facts?

host · 05-30-2008, 10:33 AM

ace, even president Bush admits that there is no proof of this, from your IBD editorial's "data"....

Quote:

2002

October: Diplomat Laurence Foley murdered in Jordan, in an operation planned, directed and financed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, perhaps with the complicity of Saddam's government.

<h3>I've posted both of these, over and over....have they made no impact on you, ace?</h3>

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html

Press Conference by the President September 15, 2006
....Martha.

Q Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda. A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And, yet, a month ago you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?

THE PRESIDENT: The point I was making to Ken Herman's question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. I never said there was an operational relationship. .....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060915-2.html

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060912-2.html

.....Q Well, one more, Tony, just one more. Do you believe -- does the President still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to Zarqawi or al Qaeda before the invasion?

MR. SNOW: The President has never said that there was a direct, operational relationship between the two, and this is important. Zarqawi was in Iraq.

Q There was a link --

MR. SNOW: Well, and there was a relationship -- there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. Zarqawi, for instance, directed the assassination of an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan. But they did they have a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. Were they getting a line item in Saddam's budget? No. There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country, and I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That's the relationship.

Q Saddam Hussein knew they were there; that's it for the relationship?

MR. SNOW: That's pretty much it. ....

ace....why do you think it is that the president of Iran can announce, two weeks before his arrival, that he is coming to visit in Iraq, then, when he arrives, drive from the airport in an unarmored sedan, spend all of his visit with no US provided security, only make a brief daytime visit, inside the heavily fortified green zone.....while Cheney and McCain must slip into Iraq, unnannounced, travel on roads pre-swept for IED's with helicopter escorts along routes lined with US troops, venture only about a mile out of the green zone, and only for a brief period....it's all documented in news reporting from multiple sources in my earlier post on this thread....why the stark difference, ace, in the ease of the Iranian's visit, vs. the visits of Cheney and McCain?

Why the much friendlier reception by the Iraqi leaders to the Iranian....and is it significant that the leading political party in Iraq was founded in Iran? Does any of this contradict what IBD editorials have been telling you?

aceventura3 · 05-30-2008, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...if you want to go down this route again....start a new thread!

but dont expect me to rise to your latest "challenge" until you do your homework.

/end threadjack

Just for you dawg. This was in that other non-credible rag today - WSJ. Guess what - I ain't going to source his information. I just want you to know I feel all safe and warm with Bush in the WH.

Quote:

The President Has Kept Us Safe
By THANE ROSENBAUM
May 30, 2008; Page A15

With President Bush-bashing still a national pastime, it's notable how much international terrorism has been forgotten, and how little credit the president has received for keeping Americans safe.

This is a difficult issue for me. I didn't vote for President Bush – twice. And as a human-rights law professor, the events at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, along with various elements of the Patriot Act and the National Security Agency's wiretapping of Americans, are all greatly troubling to me.

Yet I live in Manhattan and I was present on Sept. 11, 2001 – admittedly 100 blocks from the murder scene, but I was here, trembling along with the rest of America. Remember those days?

Everyone on 9/12 and thereafter – here in New York City and in cities across America – was quite certain that the next terrorist strike was imminent. The stock market collapsed on such fears, and Las Vegas odds makers weren't betting on safer days ahead. We endured interminable delays at airport security checkpoints. Even grandmothers were suddenly suspects.

Sarin and anthrax – the nerve gas and poison, respectively – entered our national vocabulary. Venturing into subways and pizza shops became a game of psychological Russian roulette – with an Islamic twist. Macy's and Zabar's seemed like inevitable strategic targets. Our fears were no longer isolated to skyscrapers – from now, all aspects of daily life would evoke terror.

We would come to familiarize ourselves with the color-coded scale of threat conditions issued by the Department of Homeland Security. (Was it safe to go out on orange, or did we have to wait until yellow?)

Each American city adopted its own visions of trauma. There were new categories of vulnerable public spaces. Our worst terrorism nightmares were projected onto local landmarks: Rodeo Drive, the Sears Tower, the French Quarter, River Walk, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Space Needle. Suddenly, living in rural, outlying areas seemed like a sensible lifestyle choice.

We all waited for terrorism's second shoe to drop, and, seven years later . . . nothing has happened.

Other cities around the world became targets: Madrid, Glasgow, London and Bali; the entire nation of Denmark; and, of course, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Here in America, however, the focus moved from concerns over counterterrorism measures and the abuse of presidential authority to the war in Iraq, the subprime mortgage crisis, the failing economy, the public meltdown of Britney Spears, and now, the presidential elections.

All this time Americans have been safe from suicide bombers, biological warfare and collapsing skyscrapers, while the rest of the world has been on red alert. And yet President Bush is regarded as the worst president in American history? Sorry, I must be missing something here.

Yes, there are those who maintain that our promiscuous misadventures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel have rendered America even less safe. That the president has further radicalized our enemies and alienated our nation. That the animosity for America now, improbably, runs even deeper. Whatever resentments and aspirations gave rise to 9/11 have grown and will not be easily dissipated. For this reason, no one should draw comfort in the relative safety of our shores.

Maybe so. But when a professed enemy succeeds as wildly as al Qaeda did on 9/11, and seven years pass without an incident, there are two reasonable conclusions: Either, despite all the trash-talking videos, they have been taking a long, leisurely breather; or, something serious has been done to thwart and disable their operations. Whatever combination of psychology and insanity motivates a terrorist to blow himself up is not within my range of experience, but I'm betting the aggressive measures the president took, and the unequivocal message he sent, might have had something to do with it.

Americans, admittedly, have short time horizons and, perhaps, even shorter attention spans. Our collective memory has historically been poor. But had there been another terrorist attack or, even worse, a dozen more in cities all over America – a fear that would not have been exaggerated on 9/12 – would we have allowed ourselves the luxury of quarreling over legally suspect counterterrorism measures, even though such internal debates are credits to our liberal democracy and constitutional freedoms?

Terrorism is now largely off the table in the minds of most Americans.

But in gearing up to elect a new president, we are left to wonder how, in spite of numerous failed policies and poor judgement, President Bush's greatest achievement was denied to him by people who ungratefully availed themselves of the protection that his administration provided.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1212...n_commentaries

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Or are you completely cherry picking the facts?

I am guilty of "cherry picking". When I support my opinions I purposefully pick the data that supports my opinion. When I form my opinion I look at data from various sources and generally give more weight to data that supports my biases. When my opinion is challenged with data that contradicts my opinion, I consider it and either change my view or I "cherry pick" more information to present, that of course supports my view.

I must be the only one who does this. I am guilty, I tell you, guilty, guilty, guilty. What should my punishment be?

Or, you folks can give me your data, challenge my views, man-up and debate like I know you are capable. Maybe it is just to easy to attack the source, rather than the information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace....why do you think it is that the president of Iran can announce, two weeks before his arrival, that he is coming to visit in Iraq, then, when he arrives, drive from the airport in an unarmored sedan, spend all of his visit with no US provided security, only make a brief daytime visit, inside the heavily fortified green zone.....while Cheney and McCain must slip into Iraq, unnannounced, travel on roads pre-swept for IED's with helicopter escorts along routes lined with US troops, venture only about a mile out of the green zone, and only for a brief period....it's all documented in news reporting from multiple sources in my earlier post on this thread....why the stark difference, ace, in the ease of the Iranian's visit, vs. the visits of Cheney and McCain?

Why the much friendlier reception by the Iraqi leaders to the Iranian....and is it significant that the leading political party in Iraq was founded in Iran? Does any of this contradict what IBD editorials have been telling you?

This is for you Host. this was in IBD a few days ago.

Quote:

Surge To Victory

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, May 27, 2008 4:20 PM PT

War On Terror: They said the surge would fail. They claimed we had no allies. They called Iraq a quagmire. They sought to cut and run. Now, our victories over terror are accelerating across the world.

Take a look at what happened in the global war on terror just over the Memorial Day weekend:

• Iraqi forces ran al-Qaida terrorists out of Mosul, the terror organization's final urban stronghold. That victory reduces the killers to fringe areas with little public support, and a truncated capacity to recruit and strike terror in Iraq's cities. Al-Qaida has "never been closer to defeat than they are now," said Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

Iraqi troops also cleaned out Basra and Sadr City, reducing any prospect for domestic insurgents to take power by force. Along with al-Qaida, these terrorists may try to continue, but the will is fading as the pressure is ratcheted up.

• In Colombia, Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos announced that Manuel "Sureshot" Marulanda, founder of the FARC Marxist terror group, died a hunted man in the jungle on March 26 as bombs rained down on him. Better still, the government knew this because it penetrated FARC. Marulanda died knowing his chosen successor, Raul Reyes, had been blown away, too. Indeed, three of FARC's seven top leaders have been killed since March, and the rest are headed "for the grave," Santos said.

Hundreds of FARC foot soldiers are now furtively phoning the government to beg for a deal. Along with fears of their own men turning them in for cash, FARC leaders now work in a poisoned atmosphere, knowing spies are in their midst. They won't win.

• British forces for the first time drove the Taliban from a southern stronghold in a 96-hour battle this month. It was their first combat operation since new troops arrived in March. The New York Times reported a "palpable" sense of relief among villagers, with the district chief and exiles returning to rebuild. "There has been huge optimism from the people," an officer was quoted as saying.

• In the south Philippines, Marxist and Muslim terrorists are desperate. A big arsenal belonging to al-Qaida-linked Abu Sayyaf was unearthed in Sulu Saturday, taking 283 sacks of bomb components out of circulation. Meanwhile, Nur Misuari, the top terrorist of the Moro National Liberation Front, on parole in Davao, pleaded with other terrorists to drop arms and sue for peace at a rally Saturday.

• In Egypt's al-Qaida inner circle, a leading jihad ideologue, using the nom de guerre Dr. Fadl, has now openly questioned terrorism as a tactic, given al-Qaida's mounting losses. He threatened to renounce violence — a new blow to the jihadists.

Has there ever been such an epidemic of terrorist surrender? And the trend is growing. For the first time, the possibility of a world without major terror organizations is real. The world has shrunk for them, while the nations that fight back are getting stronger.

Significantly, those doing much of the winning are U.S. allies — the ones we supposedly don't have.

The British have sprung to life after years of ineffectiveness. They now show their old mettle as they break the Taliban.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi, Colombian and Philippine militaries have become effective anti-terrorist fighters after U.S. training. Those countries' forces were directly responsible for victory in Mosul, and big reversals in the jungles of Colombia and Philippines.

U.S.-trained anti-terror forces now form a united, global front of sorts. It's a bad time to be a terrorist.

So where are the naysayers now with their conventional wisdom that the war can't be won? The tables are turning on terrorists all over the world. As victories crescendo, it should be trumpeted loudly: The surge is working.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...96780190323947

Tully Mars · 05-30-2008, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am guilty of "cherry picking". When I support my opinions I purposefully pick the data that supports my opinion. When I form my opinion I look at data from various sources and generally give more weight to data that supports my biases. When my opinion is challenged with data that contradicts my opinion, I consider it and either change my view or I "cherry pick" more information to present, that of course supports my view.

I must be the only one who does this. I am guilty, I tell you, guilty, guilty, guilty. What should my punishment be?

Or, you folks can give me your data, challenge my views, man-up and debate like I know you are capable. Maybe it is just to easy to attack the source, rather than the information.

Actually I believe I made the claim the source you sighted was "cherry picking."

Your source claimed:

Quote:

2004

There were no successful attacks inside the U.S. or against American interests abroad.

2005

There were no successful attacks inside the U.S. or against American interests abroad.

2006

There were no successful attacks inside the U.S. or against American interests abroad.

2007

There were no successful attacks inside the U.S. or against American interests abroad.

2008

So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the U.S. or against American interests abroad.

So, either your source doesn't believe we have an interest in our troops currently serving abroad or it's cherry picking its data. Either way I think it's offensive to the many dead and wounded soldiers, not to mention their families. If that's the source you "purposefully pick" to support your opinions I'm not really sure what you expect me to "man up" and debate you on. I guess I could give you a list, from the DoD, of all fatalities, injuries and IED's et el.

sapiens · 05-30-2008, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am guilty of "cherry picking". When I support my opinions I purposefully pick the data that supports my opinion. When I form my opinion I look at data from various sources and generally give more weight to data that supports my biases. When my opinion is challenged with data that contradicts my opinion, I consider it and either change my view or I "cherry pick" more information to present, that of course supports my view.

I must be the only one who does this. I am guilty, I tell you, guilty, guilty, guilty. What should my punishment be?

I hope that this is not as widespread as you imply (at least on this site). To see data that contradicts your opinion and disregard or discount it (EDIT: without cause other than that it contradicts your opinion) does sound a bit questionable.

Strange Famous · 05-31-2008, 02:25 PM

As far as I am aware he is seeking nomination to stand as a candidate for the presidency of the United States of America.

Iraq already has a president.

If I was voting I'd rather support someone who looked at the issues rather than flew in and out for photo ops to try and look like a big shot patriot.

ratbastid · 05-31-2008, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

If I was voting I'd rather support someone who looked at the issues rather than flew in and out for photo ops to try and look like a big shot patriot.

Oooh, you forgot to say "and then lied later about how great and easy and safe it was".

Willravel · 05-31-2008, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Just for you dawg.

Is Ace American Idol judge Randy Jackson?

Getting back.... did you do any looking into the PNAC, Ace? I'm still really interested to get your take on that particular subject.

scout · 06-01-2008, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Oooh, you forgot to say "and then lied later about how great and easy and safe it was".

Or it could be really great, safe and easy and then he would have to lie about it much like Clinton did about her visit to Kosovo or wherever it was she flew in and dodged sniper fire. A safe and easy time in Iraq wouldn't necessarily fit his campaign picture of the situation in Iraq.

Although sometime between November and January if he's elected, or it may even happen between now and November if his numbers get really out of whack, his story will switch and he will say the surge worked and things are better in Iraq and we don't have to bring all the troops home but we will bring a lot of them home and downsize our operations there. I figure Obama's story will change about the time he goes over and does his official visit. There's to much oil money in Washington riding on this war for him just to pack up our troops one day and bring them home the next.

dc_dux · 06-01-2008, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

Or it could be really great, safe and easy and then he would have to lie about it much like Clinton did about her visit to Kosovo or wherever it was she flew in and dodged sniper fire...

or much like McCain lied about it last year when he proclaimed it was safe to walk through the Baghgad central market or neighborhoods in Baghdad.

Or just last week, when McCain said the US presence in Iraq has been reduced to pre-surge levels...it has not.

You seem to be unwilling to recognize that McCain's version of developments in Iraq do not reflect the truth on the ground.

Quote:

.... his story will switch and he will say the surge worked and things are better in Iraq....

Do you understand the reason behind the surge...to make the environment safer or more stable for political reconciliation?

Here is where that stands:

The largest sunni block in the government pulled out of government last August and are still not close to returning...unless Malaki controls the influence of Sadar and his shiite Mahdi army. (Key Iraq Sunni bloc quits talks on political boycott)

While at the same time, followers of Sadr also left the government last year after Malaki refused their demands for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. They are currently honoring a cease fire, after beating back the government's attempt to reign them in, but that can explode any day. (Shiites across Iraq protest US presence)

The highest religious leader in the country, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, is opposed to the Bush-Malaki deal that will authorize a long-term US presence and may be on the verge of issuing a fatwah that it is permissible to attack US. troops. (Iraqi cleric flirting with Shiite militant message)

scout......where is the political progress that you think Obama might see if he visits Iraq in the coming months.

Quote:

...for him just to pack up our troops one day and bring them home the next.

When did Obama ever say he would "pack up all the troops one day and bring them home the next?"

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance.

Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.

Obama policy on Iraq

As far as I can tell, Obama actually agreed with Gen. Petraeus in one respect, when he (Petraeus) said....""There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq."

As I said to Seaver in another thread (Credit Crunch).....do some fact-checking one in a while. You only make your position weaker when you misrepresent Obama's.

05-28-2008, 02:45 PM	#1 (permalink)
scout Psycho	Obama needs to go to Iraq. Obama to Iran? Why does he refuse to go over to Iraq and see for himself rather than rely on heresay? I would be more likely to hear and believe his campaign argument that we are wasting time if he would go over and see for himself. As a future commander-in-chief you would think he would jump at the chance to go over and meet the all the officers and troops and see what is really happening rather than sit over here and arm chair quarterback the war or would it be detrimental to his campaign to go look for himself? So what's up with his refusal?

05-28-2008, 04:28 PM	#6 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Thread title for 8/24/08: "Obama's Campaign Stunt in Baghdad". I can't lay odds on who the OP will be yet, but that's the title. Those who would trash him for doing it are the same that are trashing him for not. He's in an active campaign. McCain, at this point, isn't. Seems pretty clear that he needs to focus on getting the nomination first to me. But that's just my opinion. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-29-2008, 02:21 AM	#11 (permalink)
scout Psycho	A total fuckin' waste of time? Wow. How fuckin' disconnected from reality has half of the Democratic party become? What a fuckin' elitist attitude. No fucking wonder his campaign has trouble connecting with the common people. Obama makes the war one of his campaign cornerstones. He hasn't been there since 2006. He has roughly a 50/50 chance of becoming the next commander in chief but it's a fucking waste of his time to at least visit the troops and see how the war is progressing. Yes you are correct a DoD directed state visit won't give any real details other than what the military wants him to see but its the mental fact he was there supporting the troops. Maybe he needs to go over there and give a moving emotional campaign speech and promise those ladies and gents that make up our occupying force he will soon have their collectives asses out of there. Maybe he can give all the Iraqis that will undoubtedly face execution by having their heads chopped off when he brings the troops home his regards and a personal apology ahead of time while he's there, ya know maybe shake their hand or give them a hug 'cause they are gonna need it. He could also save us some tax dollars and have a meeting with the Iranian president while he's in the area. Maybe have tea at one of their nuclear facilities and check on construction progress. Talk about the Bush/Cheney/McCain disconnect? It seems the other half has become equally disconnected from the opposite end of the spectrum. Son of a bitch I was really hoping we would have some sane middle of the road option this November, Obviously that ain't gonna happen so now we will once again have to vote for the "lessor of the two evils". Last edited by scout; 05-29-2008 at 02:26 AM..

05-29-2008, 02:36 AM	#12 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	scout...I expect that Obama will visit Iraq after the Democratic convention...but there is no reason for him to respond to McCain's attempt to bait him into going together so that McCain can "educate" him on the progress in Iraq. Lets not pretend that a trip by either candidate to Iraq is anything more than another campaign stop...but I agree, Obama should go talk to the troops - on his terms, not McCain's -they are the voters with the most on the line. I do find it amusing that McCain is trying to pass himself off as more informed about Iraq. Obama seemed pretty well informed at the Senate hearings last month with Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker. It is McCain, who on several occasions, has confused al Queda in Iraq with the Shiite militia/insurgents. It is McCain who told the American people that it was safe to walk through the Baghdad central market when the facts on the ground were entirely different. And it was Obama in 2002, months before Bush's invasion of Iraq, who correctly understood the likely outcome: "...Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength.... I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale ...will only fan the flames of the Middle East....and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda" __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-29-2008 at 03:20 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

05-29-2008, 03:44 AM	#13 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	scout: your entire post presupposes that the current "strategy" in iraq is rational--when it isn't--and necessary, simply because it exists. the motivation for these assumptions appears to be little more than conservative partisanship. what i think is interesting in your post is the repetition of the entire conservative-specific set of assumptions that enable continued support for the iraq debacle and the administration responsible for it: a) the attempt to characterize criticism of that policy as elitist positions you as "defender of the common man"--i confess to being baffled as to how that fits in with anything else in your post. you hear this alot though from the right--the curious claim that "authentic america" is made up entirely of petit bourgeois reactionaries. b) a wholly irrational assumption that you and those who support similar politics views have a monopoly on "what's really going on" in iraq. what exactly is the reality of a war? this is a serious question, if you think about it. for example, how is the "reality" of war not logistics? if you consider what a war is and where the majority of activity connected to it happens, it is mostly in shifting things from one place to another. but maybe the history channel lets you conservative-types define reality in whatever manly way is convenient for transient argument purposes. so reality would be what you like, and not anything else. so what you're really saying is obama should go to iraq so that he would end up agreeing with your claims. c) the american position on iran has made no fucking sense from the outset. the is compounded by the simple fact--one which is self-evident to everyone except that tiny segment of the population that substitutes conservative filtering devices for anything remotely like an analysis of what's happening on the ground, to the extent that any of us know about it in this information-controlled, filtered and packaged continual public-relations farce of a system---by the simple fact that the administration had NO strategy going into iraq. the wolfowitz doctrine WAS the strategy. it is mind-boggling to think about that--not that i expect you to--but if you do, it's amazing stuff. given that there was no strategy, it follows that there was and could be nothing but reaction along the way--the american position on iran has been nothing but reactive. it makes no sense. the business about the iranian nuclear program has fuck all to do with anything--it is a red herring--but if you and your conservativeland buddies ARE concerned about it--don't you think that reducing iran's sense of being-threatened by the united states would be a good step forward in undercutting the rationale for such ambiguity as exists about their program? but that would require you think in terms not unlike those jimmy carter laid out about iran last week. and carter would be an elitist, so his positions are ruled out a priori. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-28-2008, 02:53 PM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	We're not about to attack Iraq. If this was 2003, I'm sure Obama would be visiting Iraq to demonstrate that we don't need to go to war with them. Maybe Obama doesn't want hundreds of troops to be pulled off their important duties so he can showboat in a market with a bullet-proof vest on?

05-28-2008, 03:37 PM	#4 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I wouldn't be surprised if Obama did go over there. But not until the primaries are over. Or maybe that is what Hilary wants to have happen. She would have a chance if he doesn't come back from Iraq.

05-28-2008, 07:37 PM	#8 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Jazz, Tully, you're missing the high strategery here. He's getting the nomination by convincing everyone that he's already got it. He's campaigning by not campaigning! It's so ZEN!

05-29-2008, 05:56 AM	#15 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	I don't think it would be a waste of time at all. whether he's getting the "real picture" over there or not, it's important for him to at least talk to people. It's also essential for his campaign, as it would take another bullet out of McCain's gun come the national elections

05-29-2008, 01:27 PM	#17 (permalink)
scout Psycho	No you wont hear me bitchin' when he does go over unless he waits until August or September to go. I absolutely think he should go over there and the sooner the better. He should have been over there several times or at minimum at least once since he announced his candidacy and especially since he is making the war one of the centerpieces of his campaign.

05-29-2008, 02:02 PM	#21 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Scout, the thing is that he could be headed over tomorrow and we'll never know until he's on the ground. That's the way the security has to work over there, and every single politician I've seen visit a war zone travels the same way - unannounced. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-29-2008, 04:23 PM	#22 (permalink)
scout Psycho	Yea I know but then when it's turning into something this big chances are someone would "leak" something just to keep it from getting too out of hand.

05-29-2008, 05:05 PM	#23 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	jimmy carter started the fucked up american relation to iran? jesus, scout--have you heard of the shah? know who put him into and maintained him in power from 1953 onward? obviously not. do some research. what happened under carter's watch is what we might call blowback. history's hard sometimes. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-30-2008, 07:35 AM	#28 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	IMHO Obama going to Iraq now would just be political pandering although it might be good for his campaign if he could dodge a couple of sniper bullets.

05-31-2008, 02:25 PM	#36 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	As far as I am aware he is seeking nomination to stand as a candidate for the presidency of the United States of America. Iraq already has a president. If I was voting I'd rather support someone who looked at the issues rather than flew in and out for photo ops to try and look like a big shot patriot. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas