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?

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?

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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


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.

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:

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

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".

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"

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.



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.

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

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?


Yea yea I'm sure it runs in the family :thumbsup: :)

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.

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.

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.

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

I'll argue this as a neo-con.
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.

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:

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

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. :thumbsup:

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

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.

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 that rather than the ad hominem argument.

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.

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

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?

ace, even president Bush admits that there is no proof of this, from your IBD editorial's "data"....
<h3>I've posted both of these, over and over....have they made no impact on you, ace?</h3>
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?

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.:thumbsup:

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

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?:confused:

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.


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

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

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

Your source claimed:

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.

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.

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.

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

Is Ace American Idol judge Randy Jackson?
http://www.cm.iparenting.com/fc/edit...dy_Jackson.jpg

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

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.

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.


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.

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.

I didn't realize I had misrepresented Sir Obama. To much is emphasis is put on single words rather than looking at the whole picture. A 16 month withdrawel is pretty much there one day and gone the next considering the scope of our operations there.

I just stated in my opinion he will change his tune before he takes office about getting the troops out of Iraq. I also believe everyone involved with Obama and all his supporters know it will have to change before he takes office.

The surge is at least partly successful. The daily attacks have stopped and the Iraqis are about ready to take care of their own security. You are correct that the surge hasn't solved all the political aspects but it has helped in the day to day living of everyone.

And be honest, do you ever see a day when the Sunnis and Shiites will coexist peacefully ? They have feuded for thousands of years and that has nothing to do with the invasion, Bush or Republicans and it isn't going to go away if Obama wins in November. But it sure sounds better if you can blame someone for that don't it ?

WTF?

The goal of the surge was to lead to political reconcilliation....they are no closer to that goal than before the surge...in fact, they are probably farther apart and that will continue as long as there is a large US presence....particularly if we proceed with the Bush/McCain plan for an agreement with Malaki for a long-term US presence. No one in Iraq wants that..except Bush, McCain and Malaki.

It sure sounds better than admitting that Bush et al had no viable plan for post-Saddam Iraq....and still dont.

Partly successful? Exactly what political successes have resulted from the "surge?"

No, I don't. I didn't think there would be a resolution to these issues (Sunnis and Shiites) prior to invading Iraq. I don't think occupying Iraq changed anything. End result... thousands of lost lives, massive amount of injuries and disabilities (to not only our soldiers but to the Iraqi citizens) and trillions of dollars- the end game is little to no change.

I am honest. I understand I have biases. I know what my biases are. However, I do read opposing views and arguments. I have changed my views on occasion. If you have a problem with that, what can I say. If you have no biases, you have my respect.

Withdrawals started the day after Syesha Mercado was voted off. The two Davids just don't do it for me. Yes, I watch the show - I even TiVo it.

I posted a comment on PNAC in another thread.

I wasn't suggesting that I am unbiased, but when I see data that contradicts my position, I try to account for it (rather than ignore it). Even with such efforts, I'm sure that my biases influence my perceptions.

Funny how life is. At first everyone pointed their fingers and said look there are attacks daily and soldiers are still dying so the surge isn't working. Now that the daily attacks have stopped and there are no soldiers dying daily it's all about political progress. I thought the surge was about both, stopping the daily attacks on our soldiers and the Shiites and Sunnis so everyone could work things out. Here's an excerpt from the state of the union address in 2007

It really doesn't matter, you all will believe what you want to believe and I'll still believe what I want to believe, thats the way life is. Variety is the spice of life. Just don't be surprised when Obama changes his tune about bringing the troops home and the effectiveness of the surge if and when he goes to Iraq or soon after he returns and definitely sometime before taking office, I know I won't be. It will be a rerun of Nancy Pelosi between Nov '06 and the swearing in of the Democratic majority. A total reversal of everything promised while on the campaign trail.

there's been a cease-fire with al-sadr's mahdi army for the duration of the "surge." i don't suppose fox news puts a big emphasis on that part--i happened to stumble across the endless blah blah blah of faix news the other night and say that nitwit morton kondrackie making almost exactly your argument, scout.

if you leave out enough information and are politically motivated to boot, anything can be made into anything.

as for obama--my suspicion is that the entire impetus to make this photo-op trip is coming from the right. but the right is is huge trouble these days, as i hope you'll see in spades in a few months (but who knows in this bizarre-o place)--i don't see them as being able to call the shots any more. so if there's no particular reason to go or not go, except in that the conservative talking-head class is braying for it to happen, and if that talking-head class has no particular traction, except for amongst the choir it preaches to, then why on earth would obama do it? think about it tactically--why would he cede this to the imploding right? why should he cede anything to the right? why should anyone?

this is really little more than an influence test, a meme making its way across the american media apparatus. there's no reason to take it seriously if you're not predisposed to think that conservatives setting the ideological and tactical agenda for the election is desirable. i am not one of those people.

I don't see what he will learn on the ground in Iraq (amid extreme security) that he wouldn't learn in discussions with our commanders. It seems like an unnecessary risk to put Obama's safety in the hands of Bush right before the election.

This is just the right trying to make Obama jump through hoops. It doesn't matter what he does they will always find another hoop for him to jump through. If Obama doesn't jump through a hoop they will make a big stink out of it. At some point we need to just tell the talking heads to fuck off and ignore there ramblings for what they are and our chance to do that comes this November when the GOP is going to lose more seats in the house and senate and will possibly not even have the ability to filibuster.

Actually, I would be shocked if Obama "changes his tune" particularly when more pro-war members of Congress lose this November and considering the fact that an overwhelming majority (more than 2 out of 3) of Americans want this president (or the next) to start bringing the troops home and ending our occupation of Iraq.

But I am still trying to understand how any objective person would consider a 16 month orderly withdrawal from Iraq as "pretty much there one day and gone the next."

Wow...rewriting history...before the ink is even dry on the accomplishments of the 110th Congress?

Pelosi achieved more of her first term legislative goals than Gingrich with his Contract with America, in spite of the Republicans in the Senate blocking more legislation than any minority in recent history.

It seems to me that McCain is the one doing the about face. He was opposed to Bush's tax cuts in 01 and 03 and now wants to make them permanent.... He was opposed to a constitutional amendment to ban abortions and now "finds it acceptable"...He promotes his campaign and lobbying reform efforts as evidence of his commitment to open government and fiscal responsibility and then votes against the bi-partisan lobbying/earmark reform bill last year (one of Pelosi's accomplishments) and surrounds himself with lobbyists in his campaign.

Scout...you can believe what you want...no one would argue that.

But when you misrepresent the facts.... how many times must it be said here...."we need a fact check in the politics aisle"

Life is funny. Funny that a person would post this:

Would then post this:

So which is more humorous? That you really don't see a "day when the Sunnis and Shiites will coexist peacefully?" Or that you would then, several posts later, argue you "thought the surge was about both, stopping the daily attacks on our soldiers and the Shiites and Sunnis so everyone could work things out?"

Almost laugh out loud funny... if people weren't dying.

Wait, wait, this doesn't compute.


Our Fearless Leader

http://www.truthdig.com/images/earto...complished.jpg

has already told us one happy day 5 years ago that the mission has been accomplished.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/arc...complished.jpg

If i, as a regular, heartland guy, believe everything our Esteemed Leader says, how can i argue that Obama needs to go to Iraq?

Ok you all win, I surrender. Resistance is futile. Long live Obama.

scout....have any belief or opinion you want for any reason you want...but please spare the theatrics. :rolleyes:

When you attempt to rationalize your opinion with comments like:

"A 16 month withdrawal from Iraq is pretty much there one day and gone the next...."

"It will be a rerun of Nancy Pelosi...A total reversal of everything promised while on the campaign trail."

or

when you conveniently misrepresent the stated intent of the surge (as Bush and war supporters have done) because the Iraqis have failed to meet political benchmarks ("its now 'partly' successful because there have been fewer attacks on US forces")

...you should expect to be challenged.

more:

I still think Obama should (and will) go to Iraq (and Afghanistan) before the election...but at a time and in a manner of his own choosing, not in response to political grandstanding by McCain (who has repeatedly misrepresented the facts on the ground in Iraq).

The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan represent nearly 200,000 voters (Wyoming barely has more than 300,000 in the entire state) and they deserve an opportunity to hear from the candidates directly.

Will I ever stop "cherry picking"? No. This "cherry picked" WSJ opinion piece says A) our world standing ain't so bad, and B) perhaps Obama/Clinton won't deviate much at all from Bush. Wow.

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

Let the ad hominem arguments begin. Ready, set, go!

ace....another great editorial right (pun intended) up your alley :thumbsup:

It just ignores many facts that I think Obama will consider...particularly that there has been virtually no political progress...which was the rationale for the surge.

.....the major Sunni party has been boycotting the government for almost a year now...and other Sunni tribal leaders have been building their own militia in Anwar with US funds and no interest in being part of the central government.

...the most popular Shiite in the country, al Sadr, has been boycotting the government and can call for massive anti-US demonstrations (and violence) at any time.

... the highest religious leader in the country, Sustani, is so opposed to the Bush/Malaki long-term US/Irag security deal, that is is prepared to issue a fatwah that permits attacking US forces.

....the Iraqi people dont want us there.

...the American people dont want us there

Our current "strategy is doing nothing to lead to political reconciliation. The only ones who want us there are Malaki, for his own political survival, and a small band of US neo-cons (supported by a small minority of the public).

So why would Obama change his current redeployemt strategy that focuses on getting us out and supplementing the US in the diplomatic process with the affected parties in the region.

If anyone will be able to to bring about political reconciliation...it will be the neighbors/supporters of both the Sunnis and Shiites....not an occupying military power.

Are you suggesting that if there is "political progress", Obama may change his view?

semantics again: How would you define "political progress"? Is it based on attaining one, more than one, all of the bullet points you listed? Is there some other measure?

{added} I forgot - you don't go round and round with me. My bad.

I need to go to Iraq.

http://www.marines.com/page/usmc.jsp?flashRedirect=true

If you cant go there.....bring them here.

Tomorrow, in hearings of the House Foreign Affairs Committee., two members of the Iraqi parliament, one Sunni and one Shiite, will be testifying on the Bush/Malaki pending "strategic partnership" or "security pact" to establish the basis for a long-term U.S. occupation of Iraq

Like an overwhelming majority of Iraqis who want the US out of their country now, both men oppose an open-ended U.S. troop presence.

The irony here is that the Iraqi parliament would have to approve the "strategic partnership" and/or any deal that provides an open-ended US troop presence and Bush asserts that such an agreement does not require approval by the US Congress.

Democracy abroad...just not at home.

What a wonderful idea, Obama should definitely visit Iraq. I think it would help quell some criticisms as well as allow an otherwise difficult to reach audience to "get to know him" a little. Obama has been pretty good about reaching people which is why he has a slight edge over Hillary for me personally.

I feel Obama has more interest in me than Hillary does. To be fair, I think Hillary may just have a bad campaign manager and staff etc so I don't take it personally.

If Obama does visit Iraq, I think he would up his vote considerably.

No, not to murder people.

Again no need for a "visit" to Iraq....sneaking in unannounced, then huddled inside the Green Zone for most of his time in Iraq. The reporting of it would only make Obama look weak and impotent, like:

How powerful and confident did McCain and Cheney, appear....sneaking into Iraq separately unannounced, holed up in a heavily fortified compound, venturing out only briefly, just a mile away from the Green Zone, under tight military escort, over roads lined with US troops, swept in advance for IEDs, vs. Ahmadinejad arriving in advance of two weeks public notice, despite some vehement protests, with no heavy security, traveling in a civilian sedan, spending almost two days living and sleeping outside the Green Zone?

Why would Obama want to contribute to that stark comparison of who appears unconcerned and in control, and who seems weak and apprehensive?

Why would his plan for Iraq need to be changed if conditions improved?

Host, I was thinking much simpler than that. At a PR level or campaign level, I just think it would be nice for our boys over there to have a chance to see Obama in person over there. I think it would go a long way in showing Obama to a group that is not as exposed to him as say McCain or Cheney. I would guess that a significant (just a guess) of the men and women in service over there, either support Bush Administration, or at the very least, identify with or idolize a war hero like McCain. Obama's presence over there, along with his charisma and sincere speech would go a long way in my opinion in gaining new supporters.

Come to think of it, Hillary should go too. Wait, don't members of Congress tour Iraq and A'stan already?

Your not getting it, jorgelito....how many enlisted troops do you think Obama would appear before in the Green Zone? The military is ideologically republican, but it isn't about votes, is it? That would bring accusations of "campaigning".

Obama doesn't need the extra votes, and he is not a USO entertainer. Why were there no reports or expectations of Cheney and McCain appearing to audiences of large US troop assemblies during their March visit?

He can greet the troops as they return, on his orders as CIC.

Ditto.

Any visit he makes there will be a strain on the troops and the his ability to gain any thing from a hand held, heavily guarded, arranged tour would be seriously limited and likely inaccurate.

Sorry will thats uncalled for. I'd let this statement fly if it was about Bush but the majority of our troops are not murders.

Obama had a great point in his nomination victory speech last night.

I'm paraphrasing here, but it was something to the effect of, "Senator McCain says that I should go to Iraq to see what's going on there first hand. But I say that Senator McCain needs to visit all of the states that I have, to see first hand how crippling our economy has been on the citizens of America."

He was more eloquent about it, but his point is a good one; at this juncture, this election is going to hinge more on our collapsing economy than it is on Iraq. Granted, the two go hand in hand to a certain extent, but Iraq hasn't been headlining any news programs or blogs recently....it's not a top issue anymore.

Agreed. Marines are not murderers. If they are, they go to jail.

This sums up much of my opinion as I watch the campaign from abroad (not to mention read other people's opinions about pretty much anything, on the internets).

Umm, no shit. I missed this first read through this morning.

Will I love ya man, but that was out of line.

some people consider killing others murder regardless of the circumstances.

And others consider those same folks naive and unfamiliar with the way the world actually works.

Not to mention that on TFP that kind of thing can fit into the "troll post" catagory.

just because "the world" says that killing in the name of war isn't murder doesn't mean everyone should agree

I guess your definition of murder is different than mine.

Mine is something like:
Murder: the willful killing of another human being.

The legal definition includes a necessity for breaking the law, but in many places and under many circumstances killing someone is legal, so I can't really accept that definition.

/threadjack

if it makes people sleep better at night to believe that their fathers/uncles/brothers aren't murdering anyone during war time....

The_Jazz, I found will's position to be less naive and less "unfamiliar with the way the world actually works."..... and not trolling at all. What is a fair way to describe a post in response to willravel's that can be distilled to, "you're probably too young to know what you are talking about"?

Yes, a corporal shot the Iraqi in the video, but it was the Marines command and judicial administration that failed to follow up by really investigating what was documented in the video, and it was the USMC that attacked the journalist who videotaped and reported the incident..... they make their reputation, and there has been no justice in these incidents, (and we only know or the incidents that have not been successfully covered up....)commensurate with a "liberating force", they and their CIC propagandize that they are in Iraq to accomplish, in the first place.

There is also the decision to ignore this life saving weapon:

I think if willravel had narrowed his response to "too many murderers in those ranks, and too much of an urge, by the command, to cover up and whitewash the implications of that, let alone administer fair and timely justice to all the guilty, regardless of rank, especially considering they purport to be a liberating force in Iraq."... and I could agree with what he posted and why he posted it.

I agree with will actually...


whats the difference between a soldier and a gang member?

not much.

just some legal loopholes.

they're both just protecting some turf and killing people and indulging in their own fantasy of right, wrong, and what they can do to justify upholding their beliefs.

The statement is that Marines are murderers. Look up the definitions of each, and you'll see that I'm right, especially with my caveat.

Another definition to pay attention to: "troll post" - posting to draw the ire of your fellow board members. Considering that Will's statement called any Marine on TFP a murderer, that's an important definition.

Now, let me be perfectly clear about this next part - if this conversation continues in this vein, the thread will be locked and warnings will be handed out. It is only by sheer luck that none of the retired or active military folks haven't happened across this yet. My sop to them at this point is the above. So make your choices now, folks, but be ready to live with the consequences. Inflamatory statements will be dealt with in the appropriate manner.

is it possible to discuss the concept of "killing in wartime is still murder" without pointing fingers? i think it's an interesting debate on a moral/ethical level.

Der, I went ahead and made a thread for this. I don't want to have this thread close.

wait---this has grown terribly simplistic very quickly.
first off, if one is a pacifist, it follows that one rejects the validity of the legal category "war" and extends an ethics rooted outside that framework across it.
this has nothing to do with being naive--it is a political position which, like it or not, is every bit as legitimate a political position as any other. so there are no grounds--at all--for ruling a pacifist argument against war in general out of political debate. sorry, but there isn't.

secondly: if you accept that the legal category "war" entails an ethial shift--and it has to if you accept it--it nonetheless is the case that war in the modern period--which like it or not we live in--happens according to certain rules--and so it is ENTIRELY possible that a soldier can be in a war zone and be a murderer at the same time--for a killing that falls outside the rules which circumscribe war. the paradox is only superficial--that there are and are not legitimate killings in the same general environment--but these are the consequences of the rules of war, and it is a far better thing that those rules exist than it would be were they not to exist. i don't see any argument against them that would not be naive, unaware of how the world works, etc.

the question of whether a particular act is inside or outside the rules is a legal matter. obviously, since the courts which would adjudicate this sort of question are military themselves, one can expect a certain latitude to be in place--but given that the legitimacy of the military itself can be in question in such contexts--and given that the military is itself an institution based on adherence to rules and hierarchies which shape what they are, how they are relayed, etc., it follows that there is ALSO an institutional interest in upholding the rules. so these courts are not in a simple position under the best of circumstances--and the bush administration is not the best of circumstances.

so the issue of what is and is not a legitimate act, and by extension what is or is not murder in the context of war, is not in any way a problem that preoccupies the naive alone. it preoccupies alot of people, and it should preoccupy them.

the problem here is not the question, then, but the consequences of posing it in a sloppy manner in the context of a community that includes a divers population, including alot of folk with investments in the military.

given that, it seems to me that the way to go is to proceed thoughtfully and carefully if we are going to head down this road--so i disagree with the jazz in his more general point, but agree with him on the substantive issue concerning the inflammatory nature of these sorts of questions--but i would (again) argue that these questions are fair game so long as they are done with purpose and consideration. absent that, however, i think jazz and i would be in a race to see how could shut the thread down faster.

Will, thanks for creating the new thread with a better jumping off point. This was a flame war waiting to happen. And one that no one wanted.

Hmmm, I don't know roachie. I am a pacifist but find myself conflicted with war (and violence in general). This conversation may take a wide turn so we could open another thread on it.

It's a good topic: murder, war, from a philosophical standpoint. Plus what about thought versus action, theory versus practice? I am a pacifist, but have found myself in many a violent situation (not started by me) and on the verge of enlisting to serve in Iraq. Add in legality and justification then we have ourselves an interesting conversation.