Here are Obama's words from last night's debate in Ohio, when asked whether he would re-introduce troops into Iraq if al Qaeda formed a base there: "And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad." Well, obviously we know that al Qaeda is in Iraq. We know, but I'm not sure Obama knows, judging by his response. McCain grilled him on it today. Yes, yes, I already anticipate the lib response -- they never would have been there had we not invaded. Debatable, but not relevant to this topic -- they are there, the question is what to do now. Ok, so we know that al Qaeda has a base in Iraq, which is called, al Qaeda in Iraq (strangely enough!). So logically, given Obama's answer last night, which suggested that we re-introduce troops into Iraq should al Qaeda have a base there, then the troops should stay there. Is this inconsident with what he said? No, of course it is not. That's why McCain grilled him on it today, and delivered a body blow. But this is just yet another foreign policy gaffe by Obama. Obviously Obama dropped the ball by not having oversight hearings to advance NATO's role in Afghanistan. Clinton stung him on that last night in the debate. Through his role on the foreign relations committee (he chairs the sub-committee on Europe that has jurisdiction over NATO), Obama has the power to have oversight hearings on Afghanistan. He has not done so. He has dropped the ball. He talks a big game on how Iraq distracted our efforts in Afghanistan. Well, I guess Barack's presidential run distracted him from his own efforts in Afghanistan. He failed our citizens and our military due to his inaction. The guy just has zero foreign policy cred. ZERO. We just can't trust Obama to lead our military. He's getting tangled up in knots right now because, simply put, the man is in over his head.
i could say get a life. or i could say if everyone on this planet were like you. there would be no people because they would all be dead.
Yes, I will grant that the committee chair oversight situation on Afghanistan is a concern, but really, where was the oversight from republicans for the last five year's of war? just asking...
By the way jorge do you agree with the president's decision to strike against AQ (successfully) in Pakistan a couple of weeks ago without Pakistan's permission?
Now that the Democrats are taking their traditional interventionist stance back, can we Republicans go back to being the party of peace? If so, we might be able to start winning races again.
So no one is willing to tackle the substance on this issue. Not surprised in the least. Tackling substance isn't exactly an Obama-voter's strongsuit... Can anyone address the substance presented above?
Um, Obama tackled this, and he pwned McCain's lame verbiage on the topic. Just keep up with the news, please. This is, like, 23 hours old.
1) al queda was in iraq beofre the invasion 2) what does iraq have to do with "securing the homeland?" oh, that's what we call a Freudian slip...
Foreign policy is Obama's chief weakness, although I would argue that he has no policy strengths, given his complete lack of experience. Libs, if you are unwilling/unable to address the substance, perhaps I can ask an easier question: What about Obama leads you to believe he is qualified to be Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces? Specifics please.
This is just plain scary. Unproven missile defense systems? Like the one that just shot down a satellite last week? You know satellites, those things that China is now deploying? You won't weaponize space? China is glad to hear that, cause they are. You won't develop future combat systems? Why do any strategic planning at all if you won't develop any weapon systems as a derivative of that planning? Does youi not realize that the systems we employ so effectively today (predator, ac-130, precision guided munitions) were once "future combat systems"? You will seek a global ban on the development of nukes? How will you stop Iran and Pakistan and North Korea from developing them? Invade those countries? Or just take their word for it while we disarm ourselves? McCain is going to have a field day with this guy, and I have little love for McCain.
Doesn't the pan nuclear treaty mandate that we don't put weapons in space? New weapons systems don't seem like the most pressing issue right now. We already have the best in weapons systems. I would much rather focus on fighting our greatest threat which is terrorism. I hope you know that those aren't the only two options. Invading or just taking a nation's word have never been the only two options. Because 100 more years in Iraq is a good thing, and endorsing America's approval of torture turning us into something more like totalitarian crack pot dictatorships is a good idea.
The United States Military is overwhelmingly against Obama... infact there was a poster here at Camp Pendleton mocking Obama's campaign ads "YES WE CAN... surrender to the terrorists" John McCain's son just came back from Iraq and really wants to go back there and in which case he will because his unit "Lima Co. 3/3" was just ordered to go back to Iraq this April. So everybody say a prayer for the possible "First Son's" safety!
I will definitely pray for the safety of the young McCain. I'm curious if the military dislikes him so much, why is he in the top 2 candidates along with Ron Paul for receiving donations from the military?
one word my friend.. "Media".. take it from me, ive been a Marine for a long time... Obama will not make a good commander in chief... Bush wasnt a great commander in chief either because he allowed rumsfeld to run a muck.. McCain however I believe would make a fine Commander in Chief, because he knows what War is really all about, he's been there, he was a POW and tortured for 5 years, the VC even made him eat his own $hit... Just because he refused to say anything bad against America while at his enemy's hands... he even has a son in iraq... he knows how bad war is, he knows this war must end as quickly as possible... but he knows we cant surrender, and that we have to withdraw wisely... In Iraq, while I was over there, the media was extremely biased... all they reported was death death and death and destruction... what about the schools that the marines and the navy just built? what about the humanitarian missions in Mosul, Tikrit, Kirkuk, Karbala, Um Qasr that the U.S. Airforce did? or the many Iranians and Syrian terrorists that the US Army has killed to help the Iraqi people? that stuff NEVER GETS REPORTED... all you see are bad things, but the media never shows any thing good that our military has accomplished which to me, personally and deeply hurts me alot... people are calling us "baby killers" "torturers" etc... they said "200,000" Iraqi/ Afghan Civilians died in our hands... okay Media.. how about the 55,000,000 people that the United States Military just freed from slavery, oppression, tyranny and torture?? Yeah Iraq is going to be hell for a few more years... but thats freedom, FREEDOM AINT FREE... FREEDOM IS PAID WITH BLOOD.. AND I AM WILLING TO GIVE MY LIFE AND MY BLOOD FOR FREEDOM... because thats how God ment people to be... Free... Infact, I have already given up a leg and an arm, but i choosed to stay in the Military because even though i only have one arm and leg left, those one arm and leg can still fight on for Freedom's sake...
It sounds like you are confusing the difference betweeen what you think and what the military in general thinks.
