Barack Obama
Obama Campaign Welcomes Report of Maliki Support for Timetable, But Maliki Government Demurs
Iraq's prime minister Nouri al- Maliki addresses the media in Najaf, south of Baghdad, Iraq, on Thursday, May 22, 2008. (Associated Press)
Updated 10:09 p.m.
By Garance Franke-Ruta
The Obama campaign welcomed comments in German magazine Der Spiegel's online international edition today by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supporting Sen. Barack Obama's proposed 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
"Today, we in Iraq want to establish a timeframe for the withdrawal of international troops -- and it should be short," Maliki told Der Spiegel in an interview that began with a discussion of German-Iraqi relations. "At the same time, we would like to see the establishment of a long-term strategic treaty with the United States, which would govern the basic aspects of our economic and cultural relations. However, I wish to re-emphasize that our security agreement should remain in effect in the short term."
Asked when most U.S. troops would leave Iraq, Maliki said: "As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
He continued: "Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want."
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh later issued a statement saying that Maliki's remarks had been misinterpreted and mistranslated, adding that the Der Spiegel article did not accurately convey Maliki's view on Obama's timetable. Dabbagh's statement did not elaborate on the prime minister's position.
Nevertheless, Susan Rice, a senior adviser to the Obama campaign, said Obama "welcomes Prime Minister Maliki's support for a 16 month timeline" and called Maliki's comments "an important opportunity to transition to Iraqi responsibility, while restoring our military and increasing our commitment to finish the fight in Afghanistan."
In a goof, the White House reacted to Maliki's comments by accidentally forwarding the Reuters story "Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan - magazine" to its large list of reporters, ABC News reported.
Republican presumptive presidential nominee John McCain in a 2004 Council on Foreign Relations discussion said that he would support Americans leaving Iraq if the Iraqi government were not run by extremists and Americans were asked to leave by it.
Asked, "What would or should we do if ... a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?" McCain replied, "I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because -- if it was an elected government of Iraq -- and we've been asked to leave other places in the world.... I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people."
But today, McCain senior foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann was less definitive, saying, "John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground. Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view, and did so again today. Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama."
Obama, in contrast, Scheunemann asserted, "advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders."
(Obama recently raised a ruckus for saying that he would, in fact, follow such advice. "I have always said I would listen to the commanders on the ground," Obama said in early July. "I have always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed.")
Also today, the Obama campaign issued a memo to reporters, "Obama Leading on Foreign Policy, McCain Following," this afternoon, prompting this response from McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds, "Let's be clear, the only reason that the conversation about reducing troop levels in Iraq is happening is because John McCain challenged the failed Rumsfield-strategy in Iraq and argued for the surge strategy that is responsible for the successes we've achieved and which Barack Obama opposed.... If John McCain was following Barack Obama's lead on foreign policy, the United States would have already withdrawn from Iraq in a humiliating defeat at the hands of al-Qaeda."
The full memo Obama follows below:
To: Interested Parties
From: The Obama Campaign
RE: Obama Leading on Foreign Policy, McCain Following
There are two problems with John McCain's political attacks on Barack Obama's foreign policy. First, on the biggest foreign policy questions of the last eight years, Barack Obama has made the right judgment and John McCain has sided with George Bush in making the wrong one. Second, the failure of the McCain-Bush foreign policy has forced John McCain to change his position, and to embrace the very same Obama approaches that he once attacked .
Just this week, Senator McCain has been forced by events to switch to Barack Obama's position on two fundamental issues: more troops in Afghanistan, and more diplomacy with Iran. On both issues, Obama took stands that weren't politically popular at the time - opposing the war in Iraq as a diversion from the critical mission in Afghanistan, and standing up for direct diplomacy with Iran - while John McCain lined up with George Bush. Time has proven Obama's judgment right and McCain wrong.
The next shift appears to be Iraq. For months, Senator McCain has called any plan to redeploy our troops from Iraq "surrender" - even though we'd be leaving Iraq to a sovereign Iraqi government. Now, the Bush Administration is embracing the negotiation of troop withdrawals with the Iraqi government - a position that Senator Obama called for last September, and reiterated on Monday in the New York Times . And now, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports Barack Obama's timeline, telling Der Speigel that, "Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months."
Afghanistan -
· McCain at the beginning of the week: more of the same
· McCain at the end of the week: more troops
Barack Obama said in 2002 that we had to finish the fight against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan instead of invading Iraq. John McCain was George Bush's biggest supporter for a war in Iraq that took our eye off of Afghanistan, arguing that we would be "greeted as liberators"; that democracy would spread across the region; and that we could "muddle through" in Afghanistan. On the most important foreign policy judgment of our generation, Obama got it right and McCain got it wrong .
Since then, our overwhelming focus on Iraq has caused us to shortchange Afghanistan. The result is clear. Osama bin Laden is still at large. Al Qaeda has reconstituted a sanctuary along the Pakistani border. The Taliban is on the offensive. June was the highest casualty month of the war. And Obama's judgment was reaffirmed earlier this month, when Admiral Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, "I don't have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach, to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq."
Barack Obama has consistently called for more troops and resources in Afghanistan. In August of 2007, he called for at least two additional U.S. combat brigades and $1 billion in non-military assistance. Senator McCain continued to march in lockstep with the failed Bush policy, and even argued earlier this year that "Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq." This past week, Senator McCain changed his position for political reasons, embracing Obama's call for more troops the day after Obama restated it in a New York Times op-ed, and almost one year after Obama's initial plan . McCain's proposal was complicated by the fact that the McCain campaign couldn't even get its answer straight on whether those troops would come from the U.S. or our NATO allies - leading the Times to wonder " how well formed his ideas are ."
SENDING MORE TROOPS TO AFGHANISTAN
Gergen: "In The Last Two Days We've Seen Twice Now The Bush Administration Reverse Itself And Take Positions That Are Much Closer To Obama's," Added "The Greater Danger To Our Troops Right Now Is In Afghanistan. That's What Obama's Been Arguing All Along." David Gergen: "For the last few months, John McCain has had the upper hand in the arguments about foreign policy, as one of the chief architects of a surge that Obama voted against and then it seemed to work. And yet in the last two days we've seen twice now the Bush administration reverse itself and take positions that are much closer to Obama's. Last night we talked about the fact that suddenly the Bush administration had reversed course and was going to begin talking directly to Iran this weekend, and now tonight we're talking about them reversing course and saying we must send more troops into Afghanistan, and Afghanistan is becoming in many ways at least as dangerous as Iraq. You know, last -- in June, there were virtually the same number of American troops who died in Afghanistan as in Iraq, and yet in Iraq we have five times as many troops. So the danger, the greater danger to our troops right now is in Afghanistan. That's what Obama's been arguing all along." [Anderson Cooper, CNN, 7/16/08]
LA Times Columnist: After Years Of Saying Afghanistan Was Not A Threat, McCain Is Now Calling For More Troops There, "Maybe Because Barack Obama Keeps Hammering Away At The Issue." LA Times columnist Rosa Brooks wrote, "Immediately after 9/11, McCain shared the widespread view that the U.S. should go to war in Afghanistan to take out those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. But by late November 2001, he wanted to "move on to the next country." Uh-huh: "Next up, Baghdad!" Of course, we stayed in Afghanistan too, but McCain had gotten tired of it. By April 2003, he said that "nobody in Afghanistan threatens the United States of America," so we could focus instead on the shiny new war in Iraq. "We don't read about [Afghanistan] anymore, because it's succeeded," he explained in October 2005. But Iraq started getting boring too, so now McCain has turned his restless attention back to Afghanistan -- maybe because Barack Obama keeps hammering away at the issue. (Obama, who's been fairly consistent on Afghanistan for six years now, is either the rare politician who doesn't suffer from ADD, or he's smart enough to take his meds.)" [ Rosa Brooks Column, LA Times, 7/17/08 ]
IRAN
· McCain at the beginning of the week: against high-level talks with Iran
· McCain at the end of the week: praised Bush Administration's high-level talks with Iran
Barack Obama has consistently said that our policy of not pursuing direct diplomacy with Iran has failed, and he has made it clear that he favors direct talks with the Iranian regime in order to advance our interests. Senator McCain and President Bush have ridiculed Obama's support for direct diplomacy with the Iranian regime. In his trip to Israel, President Bush took implicit aim at Senator Obama, and suggested his proposals for tough diplomacy constituted "appeasement," while McCain said Obama's approach was "naive" and "shows a lack of experience.
Here is the record of the McCain-Bush approach. Iran has advanced its illicit nuclear program. Iran is now enriching uranium, and has reportedly stockpiled 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. Iran's support for terrorism has increased. Iran's threats toward Israel have increased. Those are the facts, they cannot be denied. McCain has fully supported this failed policy, while Obama has called for a new direction.
This week the Bush administration finally appeared to recognize that it is reckless refusal to participate in talks with our European allies and the Iranian regime had failed. The Bush Administration shifted its policy, and is sending a top-ranking State Department official to join in nuclear talks across the table from Iran in Geneva Senator McCain, a long-time critic of diplomatic engagement with Iran, now changed his position to Obama's and said that he had "no problem...whatsoever" with this high-level diplomatic engagement with Iran. For the second time in one week, events on the ground forced John McCain to change his position to embrace an Obama position.
TALKS WITH IRAN
Stephanopoulous: "Undersecretary Of State William Burns Will Be Meeting With The Iranians This Weekend As Part Of Their Nuclear Talks," Obama Has "Been Calling For Those Kind Of Talks For A Long Time." George Stephanopoulous said, "Senator McCain has moved more towards Barack Obama's position on Afghanistan, calling for two or three more brigades in Afghanistan which Obama's called for a long time and watch for this, Chris. We just learned today that the Undersecretary of State William Burns will be meeting with the Iranians this weekend as part of their nuclear talks. Watch for the Obama campaign to say this vindicates Barack Obama's position. He's been calling for those kind of talks for a long time." [ABC G ood M orning A merica , 7/16/08]
Gibson: Bush Administration Insisted It Would Not Talk With Iran, But Its New Willingness to Talk "Is Essentially What Barack Obama Has Been Proposing." Charlie Gibson: "The Bush administration, for years, has insisted it would not talk with Iran until Iran suspended its nuclear enrichment program. That policy was reversed today. The State Department said it will send Undersecretary of State William Burns to meet face-to-face with Iran's nuclear negotiator this weekend. So, Martha Raddatz is here to explain what seems like a major turnaround...There are political implications to this because this is essentially what Barack Obama has been proposing, isn't it?" Martha Raddatz said, "It sure sounds like it, Charlie. There's a good quote today, from John Bolton, the former U.N. ambassador. He said this is like getting an Obama administration six months early. The White House says it's very different. But it sure sounds like it's heading in that direction." [ABC World News, 7/16/08]
Bolton Sarcastically Said Bush Shift Toward Talking To Iran "Is The State Department Effort To Insure A Smooth Transition To The Obama Administration." John Bolton said of the Bush Administration's agreeing to talks with Ira, "Even if this is a one time only event in the Bush administration, it legitimizes the Obama administration to do the same thing," he said. "It undercuts McCain, and Republicans on the Hill. This is the State Department effort to insure a smooth transition to the Obama administration." [ New York Sun, 7/17/08 ]
Washington Post: While Bush Administration Opposed US Officials Accompanying Solana To Iran Talks, "Obama Campaign Officials Had Said That One Of The First Steps He Would Take As President Would Be To End The Ban On U.S. Officials Accompanying Solana." "Administration officials have long insisted that U.S. representatives would not join even preliminary discussions with Tehran until it stops enriching uranium -- a distinction that presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has called counterproductive. In June, when Solana traveled to Tehran to present a sweetened offer to Iran to negotiate, the United States pointedly did not join other members of the international coalition in sending a senior official to the meeting. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said at the time that no U.S. representative would attend unless 'Iran suddenly has a change of tune and says that they will meet the demands of the international community, which are expressed in U.N. Security Council resolutions.' European officials hailed the news that Burns would come to Geneva as a breakthrough, one that sends a clear message to Iran that the international community is interested in negotiating a solution to the nuclear impasse. 'It is a very interesting and important sign by the United States,' one senior European official said last night. Obama campaign officials had said that one of the first steps he would take as president would be to end the ban on U.S. officials accompanying Solana." [ Washington Post, 7/15/08 ]
The Guardian: McCain has "no problem...whatsoever" with high-level talks with Iran . "John McCain, said he had 'no problem . . . whatsoever' with Burns going to the Geneva meeting, but repeated said he would not meet Ahmadinejad. " [The Guardian (London), 7/18/08]
IRAQ
Barack Obama has consistently called for a responsible redeployment of our troops from Iraq so that we can press the Iraqis to take responsibility for their country, restore our military, and finish the fight in Afghanistan. It is in America's interests to end the Iraq War responsibly, and it is in the interest of the Iraqi people to have a government that reconciles its differences and takes responsibility for the future of Iraq.
John McCain has consistently labeled any plan to remove U.S. troops from Iraq as "surrender." However, just this week, the White House agreed on a "general time horizon" for the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq. And speaking to Der Spiegel, Prime Minister Maliki said, "Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months." He went on to say, "Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems."
Senator McCain has said that we must leave Iraq when the sovereign government of Iraq wants us to. Now that the White House has shifted closer to Senator Obama's position on negotiating the redeployment of our troops from Iraq, and the Prime Minister of the sovereign government of Iraq has endorsed Senator Obama's 16 month timeline, will Senator McCain shift his position on redeploying troops from Iraq? Why does Senator McCain refuse to press the Iraqis to stand up? Why does Senator McCain want to stay in Iraq longer than we need to and longer than the Iraqis want us to? Does Senator McCain think it would be "surrender" to leave Iraq to the Iraqi government?
Council on Foreign Relations, McCain: "I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people " QUESTION: Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it's a hypothetical, but it's at least possible. McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because-- if it was an elected government of Iraq-- and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people. http://www.cfr.org/publication/6973/ {April 22, 2004}
Posted at 2:41 PM ET on Jul 19, 2008
| Category:
Barack Obama
Share This: 
Technorati
| Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Independent Ad Knocks Obama |
Next: Barr Shows Up at Netroots Nation
Get This Widget >>
Comments
Posted by: pierrejaffarian | July 22, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse
"Truth crushed to earth will rise again." The truth that America invaded Iraq under false pretenses is rising again. The Republicans, now are shifting their position on withdrawal of American troops, talking with Iran, etc.
Obama, in his infinite wisdom, has been consistent in his opposition to the Iraqi war, and shifting emphasis to Afghanistan, which is proving to be the right strategy! Who is stronger on foreign policy? By all means Obama is head and shoulders over McCain and the failed Bush policies.
To Obama's credit, Bush is now embracing his views and policies in an effort to save his legacy from complete disaster!
The American people will not be duped again!! Obama '08 all the way!
Posted by: IdaHere | July 21, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse
According to Republicans, the only truth is that what is said on Fox news. Everything else is a lie. That's why they're so dumb: they only believe in right-wing propaganda!
Posted by: John | July 20, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse
Nothing false about the story that is exactly what he said in the interview, no one made it up. But just like in our country a spin doctor later tries to explain what was said. I am afraid Maliki got caught telling what he really thought. Nothing false about the story.
+++++++
Turn out the story is bogus, and Maliki denies.
More liberal lies and misinformation.
The joke is on all the lefties that jumped on this story. Ha-ha!
Posted by: Tom C | July 19, 2008 11:58 PM
Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse
So your worried about you NEXT PRESIDENT AND HIS WIFE. Get a grip on the reality of the state of your Country fool.He has the chance to make changes, and he well. Lay off thr booze.
Posted by: justadad55+ | July 20, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse
Marine corps general Tony Zinni for VP.
Posted by: thopaine | July 20, 2008 8:41 AM | Report abuse
This article brings to mind the most depraved aspect of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The Bush Administration and the tens of millions of Repubs and conservatives who blather on about staying in Iraq until "WE" achieve victory have, from the beginning, ignored and completely disrespected the people of Iraq.
The sovereign state of Iraq did not threaten the US, nor did they take action against our allies in the region. Cheney and Bush invaded, seized control of, dismantled command and control, effectively eliminated police forces of this country. In the USA, we were still so angry and terrified of terrorists that we allowed this unilateral war against the nation of Iraq to take place with scarcely a whimper. We undertook a military occupation of this country in 2003 that persists to this day, at a cost of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqi lives, as well as a few thousand of our own brave military personnel.
While the great John McCain continues to refer to this occupation as some kind of exercise in democracy, the Nation of Iraq has been devastated. Saddam and his sons are dead, true, but the military and police forces that could have taken better control of the country were decapitated by the Bush military action. The destruction of the Hussein regime unleashed sectarian strife among 3 major groups that is perhaps best compared to the former Yugoslavia. It was stupid, to say the least, and Cheney and Bush knew this would happen.
Why is it so difficult to look at this invasion from the Iraqi point of view? The war McCain proposes to "win" is being fought primarily against Iraqis who are not aligned with the US, not "terrrorists". This is not democracy, this is simply support of one faction by the occupying force (a faction apporved by and paid by the USA). There is nothing heroic or brave about our continued military dominance of this country.
The Iraqis are sick of the United states. Saddam is a memory, but the country is worse off now in some ways than before. We have humiliated the nation by seizing control of it, but allowing chaos to descend on a country no longer held together by a stable government.
Either we admit we invaded a sovereign state that did us no harm for a policy or policies that have yet to be publicly stated by Bush or Cheney, or we get out, as best we can, and leave the Iraqis to try and rebuild their shattered country. Obama was right on this, and the people of Iraq cannot wait to see the last of the US military occupation of their country.
Posted by: Ed | July 20, 2008 2:02 AM | Report abuse
One thing that we should have learned from 2004: The "debates" don't matter.
Posted by: elmer fudd | July 20, 2008 12:36 AM | Report abuse
the reluctance of main stream liberal media to put this story on the front page is fairly stunning. this has got to be the most perfect piece of political serendipity we're ever likely to experience. the sunday morning shows won't overlook it.
Posted by: rzzzzz | July 20, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse
Turn out the story is bogus, and Maliki denies.
More liberal lies and misinformation.
The joke is on all the lefties that jumped on this story. Ha-ha!
Posted by: Tom C | July 19, 2008 11:58 PM | Report abuse
"Obama Campaign Welcomes Maliki Support for Timetable"
This headline says it all. One Muslim (Maliki) suports another (Obama). White US presidents are an extinct species.
Nobody gives a sh*t about Iraq anymore. Let them do the worst thing that they can do to themselves. We've done our job. Let's all go home. We need to spend that war money at home and invest in our nation. Declare victory and go home. Iraq is no Korea, no Germany, and no Japan. We don't need a base in Iraq either. We can always bomb Iran from space a few decades from now when space gets armed.
Posted by: Vendredi | July 19, 2008 11:50 PM | Report abuse
Obama/Gore in '08
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ... ain't LSD great ??
Posted by: Anonymous | July 19, 2008 11:38 PM | Report abuse
Obama / Edwards 2008!
Posted by: Mark | July 19, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse
OBAMA LEAHY '08
Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | July 19, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse
Why is this story not on wapo's front page? This is far and away the biggest story of the election to date. Liberal media my arse.
Posted by: nerdoff | July 19, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse
The LA Times -
"Nearly a year after pulling out of Iraq's "unity government," the main Sunni Arab political bloc returned to the Shiite Muslim-led Cabinet on Saturday, in a breakthrough for efforts to mend relations between the country's largest religious communities.
The decision represented a victory for Shiite Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, who earlier this year was facing calls for a vote of no confidence over his failure to build an effective governing coalition."
The surge must be working.
Let's go home.
;)
Posted by: Chuckamok | July 19, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse
The latest spin by Republicans will be that we "won" the war in Iraq so now we can leave. Of course it has nothing to do with the fact that our agreement with Maliki calls for the withdrawal of US troops and there's no way around it without ignoring Iraq's sovereignty.
Republican hype is transparent at this point... for the total garbage it is.
Republicans no more won this war they they did Vietnam, and McCain and his sycophants aren't any different than Nixon or his... I mean... this nut McCain actually idolized Nixon in the 70's. He idolized a crooked racist idiot like Nixon?!
So what's the reality? Iraq is now a pawn of Iran. It's no longer a secular government, it's a militant religious one. And Iran is telling America to get lost... and the Republicans have undercut our strength to such a degree... all we can do is oblige them.
Republicans did that. They own it.
They've done more to undermine our national security than any single group in the history of the United States.
So if "winning" means handing Iraq over to the Iranians... and according to Republicans, I guess it does... then Republicans succeeded in their goals.
Just like their friends in Saudi Arabia succeeded in theirs when they hit us on 911... and Bush succeeded in his by using 911 to lie us into this war in the first place.
Republicans have succeeded at many things, all of them benefiting Saudi Arabia, Israel, and/or Iran... but none of them benefitting America.
Typical. Typically corrupt.
Traitors, the lot of em.
Posted by: James McDouglas | July 19, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse
Our Iraq policy is like caring for a patient. If you are hurt badly on your toe (Afghanistan) and go to a doctor and he (Dr McCain and Dr. Bush) say that toe is connected to body we will remove your appendix (Iraq) instead. The surgery does not go well and it is infected (insurgent/terrorists). Dr McCain orders large dose of antibiotics (surge) the patients feel bit better and fever is less, however, the toe has become worse. Dr McCain says that we now know how to handle infection (That he caused) we can apply to the toe. But he will keep the antibiotic going for appendix that will make terrorists immune (learn to be more lethal) and migrate to toe. Situation becomes worse at the toe. Meanwhile when Dr Obama heard about surgery for appendix, which has nothing to do with toe, he objected. Meanwhile, Dr. McCain is planning for surgery to heart (Iran) as it also connected to body. Which doctor will you chose if you have problem, Dr Obama or Dr. McCain?
Posted by: Kumar | July 19, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse
Obama 2008 United we stand!
Posted by: John | July 19, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse
maggieb, thank you for demonstrating how big of an idiot you are. Sen. Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, two years after the Hawaii became a state, unlike John McCain, whose natural-born citizenship is still in question (and will be decided by, at least, two courts before the election). Go back to school, re-read the Constitution, re-read your social studies books to learn when Hawaii became a state, and then go fu*k yourself! You idiotic, loser.
BTW, what does the bullsh!t that you have posted have to do with anything related to the McInsane and Bush following Sen. Obama's positions. Oh, nevermind. I forgot, you pathetic right wingers have got nothing else!
Posted by: DDC | July 19, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse
Publius-
Remember when the anti-government movements fighting the East European regimes were always referred to as liberal.
While liberals in the west had ritually espoused solidarity with "The Peoples' Republic of _____", dating back to the post war years.
Posted by: Chuckamok | July 19, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse
Calling someone or something "liberal" or "progressive" is a complement. Perhaps some of you should consult a dictionary:
lib·er·al Audio Help /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
-noun
14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.
Posted by: Publius | July 19, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse
This tale from Texas lore comes from Chicago Law Dog Michael Brennan, Esq.!
While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old Texas rancher, who's
hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a
conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to
Hussein obama and his bid to be our President.
The old rancher said, 'Well, ya know, hussein obama is a 'post turtle'.'
Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post
turtle' was.
The old rancher said, 'When you're driving down a country road and you
come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post
turtle'.'
The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he
continued to explain. 'You know he didn't get up there by himself, he
doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up
there, and you just wonder what kind of a dumb a-- put him up there.'
Posted by: John D | July 19, 2008 6:45 PM
-------------------
I get it.
Conservatives aren't actually brain damaged.
They're just ignorant hicks.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 19, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse
If the Iraqi gummint wants us out, they must be confidant that the al qaeda threat has been contained and they can stand on their own. (Unless, of course, he's speaking only for local consumption, for inscrutable oriental reasons unfathomable to us occidentals ;))
So I say, Great!
Let's get out.
But Obama's initial reasoning - that the adventure was futile and destined for ignominy and failure - doesn't jibe with the reason for leaving now.
Posted by: Chuckamok | July 19, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse
Iraqi PM is saying he was mistranslated.
BREAKING IRAQI PM WAS MISTRANLATED BY THE LIBERAL GERMAN MAGAZINE.
New York Times caucus blog is reporting this.
Posted by: Jeff | July 19, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse
Well, Charles here's what the sovereign leader of Iraq has to say (Iraq is SOVEREIGN, right? Well at least Bush, McCain, and Obama have so stated):
"As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
He continued: "Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want."
Obama's pragmatism is realism, the situation on the ground dictates how quickly a country can SAFELY withdraw nearly 140,000 combat troops, support personnel, and not to mention all of their gear and equipment, which must be sanitized before returning to the U.S. or being redeployed to Afghanistan.
Iraq was a mistake, plain and simple, it might be a disaster in the near future, and the U.S. need not continue throwing billions of dollars a week down the Iraqi toilet.
The future of the U.S. does not lie in Iraq or the Middle East, it lies in our competition with China and the already-developed world. Our school children are comparatively stupid and our jobs and innovation are traveling overseas. ECONOMIC competition, not military domination is the future of a successful America.
Posted by: Chris Rosen | July 19, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse
"Obama said in early July. "I have always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed."
Uh, yeah. At least he's coming around to reality. I hope his visit there enlightens him more.
But, Lord, will further adjustment pizz off the base.
;)
Posted by: Chuckamok | July 19, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse
You're exactly right Chris.
Only now Iran is basically pulling the strings in Iraq and telling us to get the heck out.
Republicans did that. And they own it. Their arrogance and stupidity has made the world much more dangerous for our childrens' children.
They've done more to undercut our national security in 8 years than anyone in the history of the US... I label them Traitors, especially after they outed OUR CIA agents... the ones who were working on information relating to Iraq and Iran's nuclear capabilities.
I'm the first to say that the hype over Iran's nuclear program is just that... Israeli hype.
But the Bush admin cut off our CIA sources of information on purpose... so they could lie to us... lie us into one war... and then another.
Posted by: James McDouglas | July 19, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse
It's hilarious that nuts in the Republican camp (like the one below) are actually trying to drum up lies about Obama's citizenship...
when it was McCain who was actually born in another country... and only on a technicality (he was born at a military base) is going to be permitted to run for the office of the presidency.
These days Republicans are more Saudi and Israeli at heart than they are American anyhow... despite the fact that the Republicans' friends in Saudi power circles are the ones that attacked us on 911.
Traitors, the lot of em... and Rove and Libby and the rest of em proved it by outing our CIA agents... agents who were working on Iranian and Iraqi nuclear capabilities. Bush couldn't have gotten his fake war if America had known the truth... and the CIA was spilling the beans.
Traitors, the lot of em.
Posted by: James McDouglas | July 19, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse
There is no military solution for Iraq. The "Iraqis" will have to determine their collective destiny via an unlikely political process or via a civil war in which the United States need not participate.
The British arbitrarily created Iraq in the 1930s by drawing seemingly random mandate borders. In the process, they amalgamated disparate ethnic and religious groups into a manufactured country. The problem in Iraq boils down to tribalism based on religious affiliation and ethnic affiliation, mixed in with a dash of competition over who will control the oil-rich areas of the country. Perhaps such an ill-fitting rabble was destined to conflict in the absence of an authoritarian form of government. Democracy does not work when there is no common body politic and when each competing party desires to impose their religion and their tribal dominance over the other. The Sunnis, the Shi'ites, and the Kurds do not need a large U.S. presence to sort out their differences; rather, they need to resolve this situation on their own time using their own wealth, not ours.
BTW, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or Osama bin Laden, and it was a mistake from the beginning entered into by a naive, deceptive, head-strong Bush administration. Perpetuating a mistake is not a sound foreign policy.
Posted by: Chris Rosen | July 19, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse
There's only one candidate in this race who's desperately flailing around like a clueless post turtle, and his name is John McCain. Lord save us if he actually wins and has to actually do the job he's hired to do. He's got the worst attendance record in the Senate.
The guy's statistically dumber than George Bush Jr. for chrissake. 5th from the bottom of 1,000 at the Naval Academy, and they aren't exactly getting the best and the brightest in America... we all know that.
The guy hasn't earned a penny on his own, he cheated on his first wife to marry an heiress he later called a c-nt in public.
McCain is a waste of DNA.
Meanwhile:
In the words of one anonymous McCain advisor on the topic of Maliki and his refutation of McCain's policies for Iraq:
"We're f-cked."
Check it out below. Hilariously pitiful stuff coming from the McCain camp these days. Let's see how long before McCain flip flops on his promise to honor the wishes of Iraq as a sovereign nation when they request US troop withdrawals. Oh wait, he already flipped... flip flop... flip flop. Republicans in 2008 are like drowning fish.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/almalikis_announcement_a_big_d.php
Posted by: James McDouglas | July 19, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse
Hussein has about as much ability to run this country as my dog "rover". He is simply a "yes" man.
Posted by: John D | July 19, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse
This tale from Texas lore comes from Chicago Law Dog Michael Brennan, Esq.!
While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old Texas rancher, who's
hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a
conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to
Hussein obama and his bid to be our President.
The old rancher said, 'Well, ya know, hussein obama is a 'post turtle'.'
Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post
turtle' was.
The old rancher said, 'When you're driving down a country road and you
come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post
turtle'.'
The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he
continued to explain. 'You know he didn't get up there by himself, he
doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up
there, and you just wonder what kind of a dumb a-- put him up there.'
Posted by: John D | July 19, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse
This is all very true, but it's also meaningless, since the media refuses to challenge McCain, on his daily reverses of policy.
Obama's been consistent on Iraq, yet he's the flipper.
The media will do everything they can to elect McCain. He is beyond scrutiny, thus, all the coverage is slanted toward Obama, and all the scrutiny is directed at Obama.
Posted by: jon | July 19, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse
The only place I would like to see the rats heart in on a stake.
========
It is cruel to criticize Senator McCain. The man was a POW in Vietnam, a war hero. He may forget a few things here or there or make a few bad calls. But we will all do that when we get older. I would vote for him any day. His heart is in the right place and he reminds me so much of Jed Clampet on the "Beverly Hillbillies".
Posted by: Oscar | July 19, 2008 4:26 PM
Posted by: Anonymous | July 19, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse
Dick, Don, Karl, and lil Georgie need to be behind bars in an Afghan jail for a few weeks. It'll be time well spent.
Posted by: HanginChad2k | July 19, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse
Obama BIRTH MYSTERY, cont.
June 22, 2008 · 20 Comments
Corrections made.
Following up on previous posts, here and here, that have raised questions about the authenticity of Barack Obama's "birth certificate," I became more curious about Barack's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (known as "Ann"), and spent several hours reading about her. In particular, I was searching for information about the circumstances surrounding Barack's birth.
It seems reasonable to ask at this point: Is it possible that Barack Obama, Ann's son, was born someplace besides Honolulu?
Here's a rough sketch of the timeline I've pieced together so far based on information available on the Internet, but I could use some help filling in the blanks. Questions are presented at the end.
Spring/Summer 1960 - Ann Dunham, at the age of 17, moves with her parents from Mercer Island, Washington following her high school graduation, to Honolulu Hawaii, where her father, Stanley, has a new sales job in a furniture store.
Fall 1960- Ann starts classes at the Univ. of Hawaii's East West Centre, a well known center of leftist thought, and shortly thereafter meets Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan student, in a Russian language class.
Oct/Nov. 1960- Barack Obama Jr. is conceived.
Dec. 1960/Jan. 1961- Ann, now 18 years old, and Obama announce to their families plans to marry. Both the Dunham and Obama parents are unhappy with the news. By this time Ann's mother Madelyn Dunham has become a bank vice president in Honolulu.
Feb. 1961- Ann reportedly marries Obama Sr., but it's unclear where this took place, who was present, and whether the marriage is documented.
Aug. 4 1961- Ann gives birth to Barack Obama Jr.
Late Aug. 1961- Ann visits high school friends on Mercer Island with newly born baby Barack.
My QUESTIONS at this time focus on the circumstances surrounding Barack's birth:
1. Where did Ann Dunham live while she was pregnant with Barack, especially the 6 months from Feb. to Aug. 1961? Reportedly her parents were embarrassed and upset about her pregnancy. Obama Sr. was reportedly living in a dorm at the time.
2. Where did Ann deliver Barack? His "birth certificate" doesn't say, and I guess he's lost the original? (Although, it's very interesting to note that Obama provides details of his birth weight in Dreams From My Father -- where did that info come from?) Wikipedia and other sources say that Barack was born at Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu, but are there any records of this?
3. Why does Barack's "certification of birth" say "Date Filed" at the bottom, when the other Honolulu birth certificate on the same form that we found says "Date Accepted"? (See them both here.)
4. Is it possible that Barack was born someplace outside Honolulu, perhaps someplace outside the country (maybe someplace closer than Kenya), and that Ann applied for a "late arrival" birth certificate after-the-fact, which the State of Hawaii apparently allows under certain circumstances?
5. Is it possible that leftist/Marxist foreign friends of Ann's at the Univ. of Hawaii referred her to a location outside the US to complete her pregnancy and deliver her baby?
(Fascinating side-note: Ann became a serious student of Communist and Marxist theories back in high school thanks to some radical teachers and administrators at Mercer High).
6. Did Ann drop out of the University when she was pregnant? If so, for how long?
7. Does the fact that Ann was a minor when Barack was conceived relate to these events? What was the legal age for getting married in Hawaii in 1961?
8. Who was with Ann at the time she delivered Barack? Parents, Obama Sr., both?
9. Why did Ann travel to Mercer Island with her newborn, and did Obama Sr. or her mother accompany her?
10. Why hasn't the Obama campaign made Ann's mother and Barack's grandmother, Madelyn Dunham (now 84), available? Don't presidential candidates at least minimally introduce immediate relatives to the general public? It seems that Obama is treating his grandmother like a big mystery.
11. Why did Barack Obama make a big to-do about, and act as CO-SPONSOR for, legislation in early 08 that was introduced by his supporter Claire McCaskill resolving questions about McCain's eligibility to be President? Is it true (as a reader commented) that "the bill that Obama wanted didn't have the military part in it" -- meaning that Obama favored a law that would allow any citizen born outside the US to be eligible for POTUS? Why did McCaskill, rather than a Republican, introduce this legislation?
NOTE: Some readers are confused. Citizenship is NOT the issue here (although some have suggested that Obama has dual citizenship). The issue here is eligibility to be President based on the constitutional requirement that the President be natural-born. In passing the legislation allowing children of the military born outside the US to be eligible, Congress has made an exception to the rule for John McCain's benefit, but would it be constitutional for Congress to pass a law doing away with the natural-born reqirement all together?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
Birth Certificate MYSTERY Ongoing
One of my favorite bloggers
Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: ann dunham, birth certificate, hawaii, obama, university
20 responses so far ↓
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHEIi4XKRmM
----- Obama changing faces on all
Posted by: maggieb | July 19, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse
In the words of one anonymous McCain advisor:
"We're f-cked."
Check it out below. Hilariously pitiful stuff coming from the McCain camp these days.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/almalikis_announcement_a_big_d.php
Posted by: James McDouglas | July 19, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse
Chuckamok,
Fair and Balancing out the Truth only works on Fox.
Nuance? If you Republicans wanted nuance, you should have elected John Kerry.
Now that you guys screwed just about everything up... the war, our economy, our national infrastructure... excuse us if we don't listen to your idiotic worldview anymore.
You Republicans are in the garbage where you belong... and Progressive Democrats are going to be the ones who have to clean up your mess.
Maybe once you're housebroken we'll let some of you back inside... but apparently it's going to take awhile for you guys to learn the necessary skill sets.
Posted by: James McDouglas | July 19, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse
Alan,
We The People tell the military what to do. The President tells the military what to do.
Not the other way around.
If you want to live in Nazi Germany, then you'll need a time machine... but your argument doesn't fly anymore.
Military commanders have their own biases... and so far all they've accomplished is handing Iraq over to the Iranians.
So excuse us if we don't take their advice as the final word anymore... because in fact it never was their word, it was Bush's. Only Bush sycophants were allowed to advance to the top of the Iraq operation (partly because only they would permit his war crimes)... and only Bush sycophants are allowed to give public statements on what should be done in Iraq from the military's standpoint.
You may be that easily fooled, but the rest of us aren't.
Posted by: James McDouglas | July 19, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse
James McDouglas - I understand that you Bush-haters are so steeped in bile that you ALL have that "If you're not totally with us you're against us" mentality. Sad.
No nuanced position is allowed.
So ... goodbye!
;)
Posted by: Chuckamok | July 19, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse
There goes the air out of McCain's campaign sails. I guess McCain could propose withdrawing in 12 months. Is any one voting for this fool?
Posted by: Scott F. | July 19, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse
Sean -
I doubt if Obama, or Hillary, would ever really move to the center. But, as is tradition, they have to APPEAR to do so.
Both are dyed-in-the-wool far left pols, probably socialists at heart. That's why it's so amusing to watch the Hillary-heads and their never-ending hissy fits. It's Tweedledum and Tweedledee, as to their platforms.
Since the Pubs have, by any objective account, screwed up the national fabric in so many ways, the public might be open to an FDR revival.
Sadly, even with an Obama admin, the Reid/Pelosi Congress is so inept and clueless and feckless that ANY change will be talked to death before it has a chance.
Posted by: Chuckamok | July 19, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse
Chuckamok,
You refuse to acknowledge that Iran now effectively controls Iraq. Iraq is now a militant religious state, not a secular one. That is a lost war, by any standard, including the Republican one.
You Republicans did that.
It's the bottom line and everything else pales in comparison.
But you can't face it or talk about it; and you certainly can't argue against it. It's just the reality of what you Republicans do... with your bumbling idiocy... you undermine our national security with every arrogant step you take... and you always have.
Posted by: James McDouglas | July 19, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse
"If the majority of the Iraqi government and the highest ranking official of the government, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, are asking for a troop withdrawal timetable, who are we to deny them."
Certainly not me. ASAP works fine.
I'll bet, tho, that Maliki doesn't want us to leave TOO soon. No. Not TOO soon.
;)
Posted by: Chuckamok | July 19, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse
for all who say obama is moving to the center
read this:
Posted by: Sean | July 19, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse
Chuckamok...you are definitely smoking that "Republican tweed" that Bush and his fellow neocons have been pushing over the last 6 years.
If the majority of the Iraqi government and the highest ranking official of the government, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, are asking for a troop withdrawal timetable, who are we to deny them. According to the Bush Administration, Iraq is a sovereign nation.
Obama is not going to significantly revise his Iraq position. Even the Bush administration had to change their foreign policy to more closely align with Obama's on a timetable (if Bush wants to call it a "time horizon" it is still the same) for Iraq and now to be directly involved with nuclear talks with Iran.
McCain and his campaign are so confused right now, they are not sure how to react to Maliki's support of Obama's Iraq Strategy, Bush's indirect support of Obama's troop withdrawal plan, and Bush's adoption of Obama's call for more direct diplomacy with Iran.
Posted by: Obama-Junkie | July 19, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse
Obama needs to be behind bars in an Afghan jail for a few weeks. It'll be time well spent.
Posted by: Ignore Me | July 19, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse
Der Spiegel asks, "When should the US troops leave?"
Maliki says "As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
And the post waits until Obama replies to put the story on The Trail under the headline, "Obama Campaign Welcomes Maliki Support for Timetable".
The Iraqi PM saying 16 months IS the right timetable and that the withdrawal is a VICTORY not a surrender, now that's the story...Obama saying "told you so" is another story, but yet again the Post buries the lede. Tomorrow in the Pincus pages.
Maliki also said,
"So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias."
Posted by: boyo | July 19, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse
An independent, I'm beginning to think Obama should win the election - just as the Democrats did the last legislative ones. What a success that has been!
At least the silliness might stop.
Maliki like Obama is making noises to "put the people to sleep". It might be interesting to see how they work it out once concrete actions need to be taken - not just people pleasing talk and "dreams".
Posted by: CH-ican | July 19, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse
James McDouglas - Spin, as expected. Back spin.
Let's see what Obama has to say after he's talked with the troops in Iraq.
I suspect he'll revise his position considerably. And it's a long time between now and November. Much can happen. I suspect the Iraqi gummint will continue to strengthen, drawing in foreign embassies to Baghdad. Oil revenue will expand. The appeal of Al Qaeda will continue to wane.
I'm concerned with were we go from here. The Bush admin's mistakes dwell in the craws of so many of you. But that's not relevant to me.
Posted by: Chuckamok | July 19, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse
To call this blog posting misleading would be an understatement. The "surge" has made the peace in Iraq (and redeployment) possible. Bush's decision to draw down troops in Iraq is not a "shift" in policy so much as it is a realization of the purpose of the temporary "surge" -- to establish breathing room for peaceful political development, and drawing troop levels down once peace has been restored. If we had believed Obama from the start, there would have been no surge, no peace, and possible broader fallout as violence in Iraq spread into a regional conflict.
Posted by: Publicus | July 19, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse
Obama chooses sides with the Iraq president Maliki instead of American military leaders. That really rubs me the wrong way.
Posted by: Alan | July 19, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse
Already, Obama is making promises to the Afghan leaders. He can't help but say things that people want to hear. He'll make promises to the Iraqi and European leaders. In the end, he'll disappoint not just us Americans, but also the WORLD. Damn, Obama is just amazing. He's a smooth talker.
Posted by: Jesse | July 19, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse
LC,
World leaders are eager to see Obama win for the same reason that the world's businessmen are eager to see Obama win (and they are... I know from personal experience)...
because everyone's freaking out about what the Republicans did to the US economy and therefore the world economy.
Posted by: James McDouglas | July 19, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse
Chuckamok: "... we'll withdraw because we are winning."
Uh... nice Republican spin. You sound like Nixon and McCain at the end of Vietnam.
We're going to withdraw because Maliki has a written agreement with the US to start withdrawing, and despite Bush's attempts to hold him ransom with billions in oil revenue, he's holding us to it. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if you call turning Iraq into an Iranian controlled militant religious state "winning"... well, then I guess we know you're a Republican... because that's what you guys seem to do professionally. You did it in Afghanistan too in the 80's... and then got us hit on 911 because of it.
We're getting out because that's the law, Iraq is a sovereign nation, and because our military can't take any more without a draft... and because Iraq and Iran are telling us to get out. We now take orders from Iran. That's what Republicans have reduced us to.
Bottom line.
Posted by: James McDouglas | July 19, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse
Obama has the chance to crush McCain in the debates. McCain does very will in that format so it won't be as easy as some think. Since Obama woundnlt even do the town hall meetings with McCain 1 or even 2 traditional debates where journalists ask the APPROVED questions really wont mean all that much really, not in the long run.
Also not saying I'm correct here but any idea why so many world leaders would welcome Obama so much? With his whopping 3 yrs experiance in the Senate and lack of world politics experiance the man is can easily be led and fooled.
Posted by: LC | July 19, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse
It is cruel to criticize Senator McCain. The man was a POW in Vietnam, a war hero. He may forget a few things here or there or make a few bad calls. But we will all do that when we get older. I would vote for him any day. His heart is in the right place and he reminds me so much of Jed Clampet on the "Beverly Hillbillies".
Posted by: Oscar | July 19, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse
Well, I guess that's it then.
And here's the hilarious part: The White House hit the wrong email button and sent the news story out en masse. Thanks idiots.
I particularly enjoyed the reaction from one McCain strategist on this issue who asked to remain anonymous: "We're f-cked."
Read about it all below:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/19/141354/208/337/553922
Posted by: James McDouglas | July 19, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse
mmmm , deja vu ??? OBAMA OBAMA the magicien!!!!!
Posted by: ORODE paul , france | July 19, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse
Recently, the Republicans have put a serious, public focus on Afghanistan - which Obama has been talking about for a long time. In the last few days, the administration has undertaken diplomatic engagement with Iran - which Obama has been talking about for a long time. Today, the White House and McCain talk openly of a "time horizon" for withdrawal from Iraq - which Obama has been talking about for a long time.
I'm confused. Which candidate shows poor judgement?
Posted by: godblessusa | July 19, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse
This is just too funny and ironic. Obama has dominated the political news cycle this week. From Jesse Jackson's comments to Obama's foreign policy speech to Obama's $52 million June haul and Obama'sforeign tour trip now underway, this past week has belonged to Obama.
Even the Bush administration's erupt change in foreign policy in dealing with Iraq and Iran, has been to the advantage of Obama. Poor McCain is simply caught in the "me too" syndrome and following behind Obama's lead in foreign policy.
The biggest story of the week for McCain, Phil Gramm resigns. The biggest story of the week for Obama, Obama heads on foreign tour.
Posted by: Obama-Junkie | July 19, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse
Now who is flip-flopping? Bush and McCain have been doing a series of dizzying somersaults in recent days.
Posted by: Tim | July 19, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse
How ironic - Obama called for withdrawal because we we're losing.
Now it's looks like we'll withdraw because we are winning.
Obama gets his withdrawal, maybe earlier than he has demanded.
Some are just born lucky.
;)
Posted by: Chuckamok | July 19, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse
Now we know who Maliki wants to become the President of the United States.
Posted by: Michelle | July 19, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse
The Republican take will be that al-Maliki is only saying this because he is afraid of al-Sadr, Bush and McCain want to decide when there is victory and that will only occur when they have their permanent bases in Iraq.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Obama is going to CRUSH McCain in the debates.
Posted by: JR, Boston | July 19, 2008 2:53 PM
That seems about right, although I am not sure it will be that close.
Posted by: G8tr | July 19, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse
Obama is going to CRUSH McCain in the debates.
Posted by: JR, Boston | July 19, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.
In 2002, under the pro-West reformist party, the Iranian government sent a peacee deal to the United States that was disregarded. Part of the peace deal included the complete dismanantling of Iran's nuclear program and compliance with other issues. In return the United States had to agree to quit meddling in Iran's affairs. The United States' lack of cooperation made the Iranian reformist party look weak; therefore, allowing hard-liners such as President Mahmood Ahmadinejad to enter the political arena.
If the United States wants Iran to suspend its nuclear program, it must change its policies towards Iran. Without change in U.S. policy, there is no payoff for Iran.
It is important to note that had the Iraq war gone according to the Bush administration's plan, Iran would have been the next target. The Iranian government will only shut down its nuclear program with the assurance that the United States will not attack Iran.