After being so tough on McCain a few weeks ago, I thought I would give him some credit for a change. Inviting Senator Obama to travel with him to Iraq is an absolutely brilliant political move. If Obama accepts, he will look like a fool. If he declines, he looks like somebody who prefers reading about the war in the New York Times.

 

McCain has shown a willingness to take calculated risks and to try to sway public opinion in his favor. Obama continues to ask "How high?" when George Soros tells him to jump. The contrast in leadership skills is becoming more obvious by the day.

 

Election '08: In challenging Barack Obama to visit the Iraq War zone with him, John McCain may have seized the campaign. He exposes both Obama's willful ignorance on Iraq and the folly of a post-surge surrender.

 

When Ronald Reagan announced U.S. intentions to develop a missile defense against nuclear weapons a quarter-century ago, he shocked many by proposing to share the technology with the Soviet Union. Debating Democratic presidential nominee Walter Mondale in 1984, Reagan was asked:

 

"Do you really expect anyone to take seriously that offer, that you would share the best of America's technology in this weapons area with our principal adversary?"

 

The Great Communicator's disarming reply was: "Why not?" - McCain's Smart Move

Watch for unnamed sources (maybe even a named source to soon be responding to suggestions that Obama is caving to the pressure of McCain's invitation. My prediction is that it will go something like this:

 

"Senator Obama had always planned to return to Iraq before the convention but felt that it would be inappropriate to announce his plans before the last primary election."

 

Obama considering Iraq visit

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama is considering a visit to Iraq this summer, his first to the war zone since becoming a presidential candidate.

 

Obama revealed his plans to The New York Times. He has been under criticism from Republican rival John McCain for failing to visit Iraq since 2006. Obama also declined McCain's invitation for a joint trip.

 

"I just don't want to be involved in a political stunt," Obama said, according to a report on the newspaper's Web site Wednesday.

At least the Iraq war is a serious issue, even if Senator McCain tried to use it as a photo op for a cheap political stunt. You think that is leadership? Sorry, no, it was a sign of a man who is desperate. Senator McCain tries to argue that the decision of whether we should have gone to war is old news, but he is wrong. Senator McCain still argues that the decision was correct. That implies that faced with the same circumstances he would do it again. That shows a serious lack of judgement that should disqualify him as President. Even given where we are now, McCain is still wrong. We won the Iraq war. The question is, how to win the peace. Iraq must decide on its own to pursue a stable government. If not now, when. Five more years? Ten? Twenty? Obama has it right. The time to begin an orderly exit from Iraq is now.

 

I listened to a portion of the President's address at the Air Force Academy. He draws exactly the wrong conclusions from history. We are faced with an enemy that uses asymetric war to bleed us. The answer is not to give them the asymetric war they want, but rather to use our vastly superior intelligence and weapons to fight them in the time and place of our choosing and then get out. By choosing to occupy Iraq we give them their asymetric war they want and allow them to bleed us white.

So what if Obama had accepted?

Edited May 29, 200818 yr by Habib

So what if Obama had accepted?

So far, Obama has gotten Sioux City confused with Sioux Falls, Sunshine confused with Sunrise, and Auschwitz confused with Buchenwald. I think accepting McCain's invitation would have led to some embarrassing gaffes. Conventional wisdom says to attack your opponent's strengths but the more people see Obama and McCain on the world stage together, the sillier Obama will look in comparison, IMO. Obama is at his best in front of a camera reading from a teleprompter.

 

It is too bad for Obama's sake that he did not announce plans to visit Iraq again before McCain's invitation. Now, the trip will not only look like a me-too exercise, it will also be portrayed by McCain's supporters as a dodge.

 

McCain should follow up with a challenge to debate the war in Baghdad or Mosul or Kirkuk or Tikrit or the city of Obama's choice.

At least the Iraq war is a serious issue, even if Senator McCain tried to use it as a photo op for a cheap political stunt. You think that is leadership? Sorry, no, it was a sign of a man who is desperate. Senator McCain tries to argue that the decision of whether we should have gone to war is old news, but he is wrong. Senator McCain still argues that the decision was correct. That implies that faced with the same circumstances he would do it again. That shows a serious lack of judgement that should disqualify him as President. Even given where we are now, McCain is still wrong. We won the Iraq war. The question is, how to win the peace. Iraq must decide on its own to pursue a stable government. If not now, when. Five more years? Ten? Twenty? Obama has it right. The time to begin an orderly exit from Iraq is now.

 

I listened to a portion of the President's address at the Air Force Academy. He draws exactly the wrong conclusions from history. We are faced with an enemy that uses asymetric war to bleed us. The answer is not to give them the asymetric war they want, but rather to use our vastly superior intelligence and weapons to fight them in the time and place of our choosing and then get out. By choosing to occupy Iraq we give them their asymetric war they want and allow them to bleed us white.

This month, fewer Americans will likely die in Iraq than in any month since the war began. Since Bush adopted what was essentially the McCain plan, both Iraqi and American casualties have plummeted. The Iraq War will not be a winning issue for Democrats and Obama would be smart to focus the debate elsewhere. Whether most Americans agree with the decision to go to war in Iraq or not, they want a competent commander-in-chief and McCain would be more than competent. Obama would be Jimmy Carter-lite.

Why will Obama look like a fool if he accepts McCain's invitation? The inevitable photo ops showing both candidates walking through the Green Zone wearing flak jackets and surrounded by a phalanx of Secret Service will certainly do nothing for McCain.

 

From what I have seen of Obama, he is a superb debater. I expect that he will absolutely skewer McCain in a debate on the subject of Iraq. For the simple reason that McCain will be trying to defend an incredibly unpopular position.

At least the Iraq war is a serious issue, even if Senator McCain tried to use it as a photo op for a cheap political stunt. You think that is leadership? Sorry, no, it was a sign of a man who is desperate. Senator McCain tries to argue that the decision of whether we should have gone to war is old news, but he is wrong. Senator McCain still argues that the decision was correct. That implies that faced with the same circumstances he would do it again. That shows a serious lack of judgement that should disqualify him as President. Even given where we are now, McCain is still wrong. We won the Iraq war. The question is, how to win the peace. Iraq must decide on its own to pursue a stable government. If not now, when. Five more years? Ten? Twenty? Obama has it right. The time to begin an orderly exit from Iraq is now.

 

I listened to a portion of the President's address at the Air Force Academy. He draws exactly the wrong conclusions from history. We are faced with an enemy that uses asymetric war to bleed us. The answer is not to give them the asymetric war they want, but rather to use our vastly superior intelligence and weapons to fight them in the time and place of our choosing and then get out. By choosing to occupy Iraq we give them their asymetric war they want and allow them to bleed us white..

 

 

Well said. :thumb:

Why will Obama look like a fool if he accepts McCain's invitation? The inevitable photo ops showing both candidates walking through the Green Zone wearing flak jackets and surrounded by a phalanx of Secret Service will certainly do nothing for McCain.

 

From what I have seen of Obama, he is a superb debater. I expect that he will absolutely skewer McCain in a debate on the subject of Iraq. For the simple reason that McCain will be trying to defend an incredibly unpopular position.

:lol: We must have watched different debates. Obama is a mediocre debater and Hillary cleaned his clock in his last head-to-head debate with her. No wonder he has declined her debate challenges these past few weeks.

 

McCain has not been defending an unpopular position on Iraq. He has been pointing out, correctly in my opinion, that his criticism of how the Bush administration had been conducting the war was correct. The surge has worked just as McCain predicted it would. Liberal Democrats who had declared defeat earlier, were forced to treat Gen. Petraeus with some of the respect that he deserved on his last trip to Capitol Hill. Gen. Petraeus and Senator McCain were right about the surge and Obama and his MoveOn.org supporters were wrong...very wrong.

 

Most American voters are not looking for a pacifist president, regardless of whether they oppose a particular war. Obama's initial position on the war put him at odds with almost every elected Democratic representative in this country, and he took that position without questioning the accuracy of the available intelligence reports.

:lol: We must have watched different debates. Obama is a mediocre debater and Hillary cleaned his clock in his last head-to-head debate with her. No wonder he has declined her debate challenges these past few weeks.

 

 

You mean the April 16 ABC News debate in which Obama fielded questions about flag pins and Jeremiah Wright's patriotism for an hour before being asked a question about a real issue like Iraq, the U.S. economy, or health care? Get serious. The only people who thought he "lost" that debate are the ones who would rather not discuss Iraq or the U.S. economy or health care.

 

 

McCain has not been defending an unpopular position on Iraq. He has been pointing out, correctly in my opinion, that his criticism of how the Bush administration had been conducting the war was correct. The surge has worked just as McCain predicted it would. Liberal Democrats who had declared defeat earlier, were forced to treat Gen. Petraeus with some of the respect that he deserved on his last trip to Capitol Hill. Gen. Petraeus and Senator McCain were right about the surge and Obama and his MoveOn.org supporters were wrong...very wrong.

 

 

Really? The surge worked? If it worked, that must mean we have achieved "victory" and we can pull most of our troops out. What's that? The Iraqis haven't used the "breathing room" we provided to settle their sectarian-related governance issues? We can't leave? Either the surge didn't "work" or your definition of success needs to be re-calibrated.

 

 

Most American voters are not looking for a pacifist president, regardless of whether they oppose a particular war. Obama's initial position on the war put him at odds with almost every elected Democratic representative in this country, and he took that position without questioning the accuracy of the available intelligence reports.

 

 

You can try to use your nuanced brush to paint a more agreeable picture but the bottom line facts are these:

 

• Most Americans think Iraq was a mistake and has not been worth the cost.
  
• Even now McCain will not admit Iraq was a mistake.
  
• Most Americans want the U.S. to either withdraw its troops or set a timetable for withdrawal.
  
• McCain supports maintaining high U.S. troop levels in Iraq indefinitely.
  

 

He will have a tough time finding buyers for what he's selling.

Prior to being sworn in to serve in the US Senate, Obama was not privy to any classified intelligence regarding Iraq and was therefore incapable of taking an informed position on the issue. In short, he had no reason to doubt what his future collegues believe to be true - that Iraq had active programs to develop weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear technology.

 

I do not believe that most Americans will believe that his decision was based on "good judgment." Obama took an uninformed position on Iraq, that was undoubtedly popular with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Obama's other constituents on Chicago's south side.

 

The US Senate vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq was 77 to 23. The following Democrats voted in favor of the resolution. I believe that many of them voted to authorize force because of puplic opinion polls, but I am not so sure that Obama's name would not have been among them if he had been in the Senate at the time.

 

Senate Democrats voting "aye" on the resolution:

 

Baucus (D-MT)

Bayh (D-IN)

Biden (D-DE)

Breaux (D-LA)

Campbell (R-CO)

Cantwell (D-WA)

Carnahan (D-MO)

Carper (D-DE)

Cleland (D-GA)

Clinton (D-NY)

Daschle (D-SD)

Dodd (D-CT)

Dorgan (D-ND)

Edwards (D-NC)

Feinstein (D-CA)

Harkin (D-IA)

Hollings (D-SC)

Johnson (D-SD)

Kerry (D-MA)

Kohl (D-WI)

Landrieu (D-LA)

Lieberman (D-CT)

Lincoln (D-AR)

Miller (D-GA)

Nelson (D-FL)

Nelson (D-NE)

Reid (D-NV)

Rockefeller (D-WV)

Schumer (D-NY)

Torricelli (D-NJ)

 

81 House Democrats voted in favor of the resolution.

 

From what I have seen of Obama, he is a superb debater. I expect that he will absolutely skewer McCain in a debate on the subject of Iraq. For the simple reason that McCain will be trying to defend an incredibly unpopular position.

 

With all due respect I completely and absolutely disagree with this statement.

 

Obama speaks with power, and a youthful zeal, which makes him evry fun to listen to, but he is FAR from beign superb. He has repeatedly stumbled over himself, made critical oversights, and when he was positioned firmly to completely shut the door on Clinton's chances with a debate established, isntead clinton dominated the debate allowing us to still be in the long drawn out process that we are still in today. Just because someone stands for something that is "unpopular" does not mean they will get toasted in a debate, it just means that certain people are slanted enough to crown Obama the "Debate King" if he simply says what the viewer has established as their viewpoint. I have more respect for the candidate who can stand strong and make valid points over a subject that they have never waivered on, rather than a candidate who moves his viewpoint simply towards what his party wants, whether he fels that way or not.

Prior to being sworn in to serve in the US Senate, Obama was not privy to any classified intelligence regarding Iraq and was therefore incapable of taking an informed position on the issue. In short, he had no reason to doubt what his future collegues believe to be true - that Iraq had active programs to develop weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear technology.

 

I do not believe that most Americans will believe that his decision was based on "good judgment." Obama took an uninformed position on Iraq, that was undoubtedly popular with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Obama's other constituents on Chicago's south side.

 

The US Senate vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq was 77 to 23. The following Democrats voted in favor of the resolution. I believe that many of them voted to authorize force because of puplic opinion polls, but I am not so sure that Obama's name would not have been among them if he had been in the Senate at the time.

 

Senate Democrats voting "aye" on the resolution:

 

Baucus (D-MT)

Bayh (D-IN)

Biden (D-DE)

Breaux (D-LA)

Campbell (R-CO)

Cantwell (D-WA)

Carnahan (D-MO)

Carper (D-DE)

Cleland (D-GA)

Clinton (D-NY)

Daschle (D-SD)

Dodd (D-CT)

Dorgan (D-ND)

Edwards (D-NC)

Feinstein (D-CA)

Harkin (D-IA)

Hollings (D-SC)

Johnson (D-SD)

Kerry (D-MA)

Kohl (D-WI)

Landrieu (D-LA)

Lieberman (D-CT)

Lincoln (D-AR)

Miller (D-GA)

Nelson (D-FL)

Nelson (D-NE)

Reid (D-NV)

Rockefeller (D-WV)

Schumer (D-NY)

Torricelli (D-NJ)

 

81 House Democrats voted in favor of the resolution.

 

So this is a mind reading post?

 

Baucus (D-MT)

Bayh (D-IN)

Biden (D-DE)

Breaux (D-LA)

Campbell (R-CO)

Cantwell (D-WA)

Carnahan (D-MO)

Carper (D-DE)

Cleland (D-GA)

Clinton (D-NY)

Daschle (D-SD)

Dodd (D-CT)

Dorgan (D-ND)

Edwards (D-NC)

Feinstein (D-CA)

Harkin (D-IA)

Hollings (D-SC)

Johnson (D-SD)

Kerry (D-MA)

Kohl (D-WI)

Landrieu (D-LA)

Lieberman (D-CT)

Lincoln (D-AR)

Miller (D-GA)

Nelson (D-FL)

Nelson (D-NE)

Reid (D-NV)

Rockefeller (D-WV)

Schumer (D-NY)

Torricelli (D-NJ)

 

81 House Democrats voted in favor of the resolution.

 

Is that before or after he was against it, before he was for it, but then against it?

I do have one question....Can someone please tell me what a "community organizer" is...