Every word or stateMent issued from Obama or his campaign is either a deniial, clarification or appology. I suggest we RENAME – OBAMA – “FLUFF” – LIKE IN A CLOUD WITHOUT CONTENT.

jFERGIE

http://www.therealmccain.com

You spelled prerogative wrong.

national security is much broader than the ill-advised and illegal war in iraq

I would have added another L to “soley”, probably right before the Y. “Soley” to me has connotations of shoes, or perhaps souls.

Instead of taking Obama to task, why haven’t you questioned John McCain’s statement that he’d keep troops for a 100 years in Iraq. George Bush lied to the American people about the reason to go to war in Iraq. Like a spoiled child, he wanted his own way. Afghanastan is where the enemy was, is, and will be for years to come .

Whether you like the war or not, but to fight a war with a time table is just absurd. So we should be telling the enemy (as the media insists thru the worldwide broadcast) that “Look, we will fight you for only 2 years whether we are winning or losing. Then we are out of here”. How can a war be won this way??!! Critiques are right that “withdraw with a time table no matter what” is to make sure that we lose the war. OK for the liberal if that means scoring a political point in Washington. The history will not say that Bush loses the war. The history, and the rest of the world, including our enemies, will say that “The US lost the war.” People just do not seem ever be able to learn the lesson from Vietnam. That is why I am saying that whomever advocating the time table withdrawal no matter what is irresponsible and dare I say “unpatriotic”? So Post is absolutely right. Three cheers!

People wants to get out of the war because they do not like war. (50% of the people polled) That doesn’t mean that they would agree on a time tabe withdrawal. Another 50% of the people said that they oppose a time table withdrawal, not because they like war, but they know it is an absurd strategy to fight a war. Once we are in, we should win. The poll did not make that clear because they did not want to. Obama understands this. That is why he is saying, sometimes, about “responsible withdrawal”. But he is flip-flopping, bowing to the pressure from the left.

So if he thinks we should consult with the generals and depending on the ground situations, as he once said, then what is the difference from the approach Bush is taking, and what McCain is saying. Isn’t Bush doing exactly that, a responsible withdrawal?

Good Job Garrett on putting this up.
I agree with Obama (as Rice explains) here on this one for the simple logic.
I’m only one vote but in America that’s important.
It’s the whole basis on which we’re built.

I find it interesting that Rice never responds directly to the Post’s criticism of O’Bama’s “iron timetable;” rather, she seems arrogantly offended by ideas she apparently reads into the article – ie., that the Post does not care about any other foreign policy issues. What a preposterous accusation!! Rice is the perfect spokesperson for O’Bama because neither of them seems to want to respond directly to any legitimate criticism. Rather than respond to criticism, O’Bama’s camp likes to criticize louder, somehow trying to divert rather than resolve. And, what is happening that the Post is actually challenging a stance taken by a Democrat? Good heavens!!

Unfortunately I and all my republican friends agree with Sen. Obama and will hold our nose and vote for him. Loosing is the only way the Republican part can come back.

If THIS Rice gets in power on the coattails of Obama, we as a nation are in BIG TROUBLE. It’s all about her being “RIGHT” and not about solving difficult problems. She shares the same arrogance of her would be boss.

I think Obama wants to pull out the troops day 1 in the White house then goes back in after terrorists take strongholds in Iraq.
Now changed to 16 months?

waaaa, that is CHANGE……of his mind, again…….

Garrett good job on puttin this one up!

I agree with Obama (as Rice explains) on this one for its simple logic.
I’m only one vote but in America that’s important.
It’s the foundation we’re built upon and taught to believe in.

Another important thing that has come up lately is that we’ve been asked to leave, by Iraq or at the very least to give a timetable as to when we will, On Their Terms – Not Ours.
Bush has said that that is how it should be – because they are and independent nation and we are there to help as long as they want and need it.

BUT, currently it has been put out there lately that: WE shall decide if and when they will be ready to take over their own country and under what conditions WE will continue to monitor their progress.

Why do I not see that mentioned inconjunction with the rest of the Post’s article, is that elephant invisible?

Owned.

“Perogative”? Where is the copy editor? Spell checker?

McCain never said a condition of troop presence in Iraq was that it remain “high.” You mischaracterize McCain’s position. “100 year” comment. That is a straw man at best.

Furthermore, the withdrawal plan is not ‘arbitrary’ in any way; it came after consultations with many generals and reflects what is understood to be a safe timetable. In other words, we should really have our troops out tomorrow, but that’s not realistic or safe, so here is a reasonable well-thought out plan.

As far as the Washington Post’s reputation, it’s about as bad as any neoconservative figure or group. They’ve been widely discredited, although you can still sometimes hear them squawking in the wind.

Unbelievable. So now, nobody is allowed to write editorial columns disagreeing with a politician’s actions? Where will this molly coddling end? Garrett is so off base here…but, he DOES have the right to think and say what he believes. Even if it’s idiotic, ill-advised or uncalled for.

Anyway, I’ve never ever seen any politician have SO DARN MANY apologists for everything he has said and done as this Obama guy has. What the hell kind of president are we going to have? One who stutters, stammers and folds when things get disagreeable? One who survives on his apologists defenses? This is going to be bad. This is going to be very bad for us.

Dr. Rice’s comments are quite silly, little more than poorly disguised attempts to prop up one “straw man” after another, characterizing each as a position taken by the Post, and then demolishing these non-existent positions as if they were the substance of the Post editorial.

The Post never stated (or even implied) that the war in Iraq was “the only significant national security challenge this nation faces”. Nor did the Post suggest that the solution to the Iraq war was “to stay there indefinitely”. And like Dr. Rice, i too “would be stunned if the Washington Post would make the argument that we have no reason to be concerned at the growing threat from Al Qaeda the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan”.

But, of course, the Post never made any such argument. The idea is Dr. Rice’s alone. I wonder where she got it.

It appears that Dr. Susan Rice didn’t read the Washington Post – nor did she note the irony that was laid out in that article.

The article did not state that Iraq is the only national security challenge… So you can just ignore the rest of her diatribe on that point.

What the article does lay out is that Obama wanted to withdraw troops out of Iraq regardless of underlying political issues – and his argument for withdrawing troops was based on two principles
1) that the war was the wrong war to begin with (that is certainly debatable)
2) that the Iraqis will only start the political process of dealing with the sectarian violence by having LESS american support.

Interestingly, things have turned around with the Surge – and Iraq is on a much better path today compared to a year or two ago…

So, we could use Obama/Susan Rice’s argument for Afghanistan – let’s withdraw troops there and rely on the local government to fix the insurgency/taliban problem.

Well that would be silly…

What Obama needs to do: he needs to stop pandering to the anti-war movement, and do what is best for our national security interests (and the Persian Gulf is priority number ONE as long as we are a fossil-fuel-dependent country). That means he has to evaluate the political situation in conjunction with our military leaders to extricate ourselves without leaving a political vacuum (like we did in Afghanistan after the Soviets left).

Take that Dr. Rice (and Major Garrett)

“On other days of the week, the Washington Post is wont to talk about Iran…. ”
Uhhh, typo? That makes no sense at all.

I just watched a press conference where George Bush had to ask a reporter what the current price of gas was. I just watched a town hall meeting where Senator McCain referred to the Czech Republic as Czechoslovakia.

I’m a Republican, but they don’t get my vote by default.

Give me a smart guy this time cause I’m tired of the alternatives. I’m switching teams this time.

How can Obama say he wants ALL troops out in 16 months and now say he wants to listen to the commanders in Iraq. You can’t have it both ways.

pwnd. rhodes scholar > washington post? shocking.

repubilcans are pathetic, just like their leader. I had to laugh outlowed when bush said the economies problems stem from the democratic congress. It took a lot longer than a year to get where we are at today. If we had not gone to war, we would not be paying as high prices. But the republicans thought the war would help them get some money. And it did, there companies cleaned up over there while we paid for it. Does it nt seem funny to you taht four months ago bush had no idea gas was projected to go up so high, now that it has he is trying like hell to SEEM like he is doing something about it. I wonder if this was Not an election year would bush be trying so hard, I doubt it, America is a fend for yourself country with him running it. It is not his job to manage the economy or provide jobs!! Its his job to play ranch and talk down to people. I am so sick of our country because of these idiots, and Fox news is no better.

Yay more spin by the Obama team. When you’re wrong don’t admit you’re wrong do one of the following:
Change the subject.
Accuse the accusor.
Act outraged.
Change the criteria.
Cry racism

The Wasington Post is correct.Obama is so naive on the War on Terror,Iraq,Afghanistan, and terrorists it is pitiful.He still thinks the terrorists do what they do because they are uneducated and can’t help themselves from being evil.If he would stop to get the facts he would find that most of the major terrorists are college educated in the West. Do a little research, Obama.
You sure a wonderful speaker, but most of the time you don’t know what you are talking about.

When it comes to the War On Terror Obama is so very naive and stubborn.He sets a timetable for withdrawal yesterday before he ever makes a trip to Iraq and talks to the Generals responsible for fighting this war.Will he be the same as President and make national security decisions before he has all the facts from the people who are involved in the battle? I heartily agree with the Washington Post article.To show his naievete” on terrorists he has said they do the evil things they do because they are uneducated and we must understand that.He made that statement without stopping to check the facts as he does so often. Most of the terrorists involved in the biggest terror attacks are college educated and got their educations here in the West.
I don’t think I’ll be able to sleep at night if Obama becomes our Commander in Chief.God help us all.

[...] http://bourbonroom.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/07/16/team-obama-versus-washington-post/ [...]

Let’s go with the assumption that the war was a mistake (I believe it was especially with the benefit of hindsight). The Bush administration is accused of going into the war blindly or recklessly looking only at best case scenario outcomes. Following the Obama logic wouldn’t we be exiting a little blindly looking only at the best case scenario? We broke it, we maybe shouldn’t be there, we may have made a terrible error. But all the more reason to make the best decisions based on the best information available today and tomorrow. Let’s not compound the error by blind wishful thinking again.

Ah, the latest attempt to explain away Obama’s ever-shifting position on Iraq.

Set deadlines sound stupid? Change ‘em – that is, until the wingnuts carp, so finesse the position yet again.

Team Obama truly doesn’t have a clue. The don’t understand the enemy or the threat. They want to turn the clock back to 9/10/01 and pretend that the bad guys will just “go away” if only we talk nice to them – without realizing that this enemy won’t stop until they are defeated or they establish the next Caliphate. Their position is schizophrenic.

How a major party could nominate such a neophyte is beyond me.

It was my understanding that the Taleban are resurgent in Afghanistan –perhaps more so than than Al-Qaeda? (I’m willing to be corrected if I’m mistaken)?? Also, I recall reading an Obama column (?2002ish) criticizing us for invading Afghanistan–since the Taleban never attacked us (never mind they were asked to turn over the 9-11 perpetrators). If I’m mistaken on any of this (no research–just an impaired memory!!!)–please feel free to criticize/correct!

Obama is a Marxist who hates America like his mentor Jeremiah Wright, therefore, his policies both foreign and national will be very detremental to America, that he and pastor hates so much. The media should expose more of the evil consequences that could possibly happen, should Obama be elected as President of the United States of America.

It is interesting that Ms. Rice did not comment on the Post’s concern of Obama’s “Iron Timetable.” Could it be that there is simply no defence of his position?

[...] what is embarrassing is this intellectually dishonest rebuttal to the Washington Post. Did the Post editors really discount Afghanistan? Or did they commend Barack [...]

How strong are Dr.S.Rice’ response arguments,If I may ask ?
Dr.Rice said : “The logic of B.O.s’ position on Iraq,as I’ve said repeatedly on this call,is that it’s litterally not possible to sustain indefinitely impermanent bases at high troop levels,as J.Maccain would argue we must,without substantially degrading, if not breaking,our military.And that is the first and foremost element of securing our nation’s interests.” She has chosen,in light of above arguments,to abandon Iraq at any cost,despite the facts that the war is nearing total victory,that the brave men and women’s near successful fight would be turned around and put in vain,that defeatism means the honor of the US as a superpower would be at stake and ,as a result ,would be losing crediblity among peaceful allies who would seek protection from the US against evils doers,that finally,worse still,withdrawal at any cost would acknowledge the effectiveness of the ennemy’s strategy that conducting a protracted war, be patient enough and wait until the ennemy (the US) is bleeded to exhaustion would lead to victory,would give arms and ammunitions to insurgents to regroup and defeat the supposedly still weak local government.
In addition, her assertion that Sen.Maccain argue for an indefinite stay at high troop levels is quite misunderstood if not facts twisting and misleading.Staying until the Iraq government can take charge of defeating the insugents on its own or with little help from its ally or allies does means indefinite as the Obama campaign would distort.In fact that is understandably J.Maccain’s stand and clearly the Bush administration is doing fust that,not to mention a significant troop drawdown is
underway.
Not only are the arguments based on distortion and misleading weak and have no merits but so counterproductive that they are an indirect acceptance that J.Maccain’s stance is strong.

Iraq was an illegal and a constly distraction. Washington Post and others who view national security as an Iraq centric issue simply are too miopic in their outlook and perception. And now, Bush opening up the 3rd front against Iran, we are fast approaching that point of no-return, where the only recourse available to American military, to gain victory would be to use Nukes in the middle-east.

That is a scenario MacCain-Bush would lead us to, and we have to stop going on that path. Obama’s reading of our security situation is much more realistic, and achievable. It is aimed at stopping this Iraq war, and focusing on the real terrorist threat. We certainly dont want to be in Iraq ‘for the next 100 years’, or follow ‘anyone to hell’, just becuase they are going there.

Ok: Major Garrett: below a message from Obama campagn. They say 22M. You say 52 M. Why such a vast amount? Are they full of more untruths? Just want to look LARGE as usual?

Dear Isabelle,

We have some good news today, and it’s all thanks to supporters like you.

In the month of June, the DNC raised approximately $22 million — our best month of the year by far.

This is a stunning achievement, and it’s to your credit. People like you heard the call, and thousands have answered it.

But we’re facing opponents with staggering resources at their disposal. The Republican National Committee finished June with nearly $68 million in the bank.

We can’t stop now. We’re counting on you to help us close the gap.

Please make a donation of $5 now to keep building our momentum and bring about the change this country so desperately needs:

https://donate.barackobama.com/ourjunenumbers

The DNC does not accept donations from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs.

But John McCain and the RNC have no such standards, and together they raised nearly $100 million in June. Add to that the huge checks brought in by shadowy outside groups, there’s no telling how much our opponents will spend on attack ads.

They’re not backing down, and neither can we. Only by working together can we fight back against the massive funds they’re raising from special interest PACs and Washington Lobbyists.

It’s up to you. Take a moment now and strengthen our movement for change:

https://donate.barackobama.com/ourjunenumbers

We’re fighting for Democrats up and down the ballot and in every state. That means competing in a lot of battlegrounds that have not traditionally been successful for Democrats. Our 50-state strategy is working — but we need your support to keep the momentum going.

It’s going to take all of us working together to defeat John McCain and the Republicans, and we can’t do it without you.

Thanks,

Tom McMahon

Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, http://www.democrats.org.
This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

Democratic National Committee, 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC 20003

Contributions or gifts to the Democratic National Committee are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.

Click here to unsubscribe from this mailing list.

I watched you on Fox Report last night, and I figure you’ve been co-opted by the rookie’s campaign. You sounded like one of his campaign workers. Pathetic.

“The logic of Barack Obama’s position on Iraq, as I’ve said repeatedly on this call, is that it’s literally not possible to sustain indefinitely impermanent bases at high troop levels, as John McCain would argue we must, without substantially degrading, if not breaking, our military.”

The “Logic” must be on both sides….McCain NEVER SAID that he would keep soldiers at this level there indefinietely. I wish people would get this right! It’s on you tube…actually take the time to listen to the whole clip.

LOGIC does say that if you don’t trust a situation you keep some troops there to keep it from happening again. Do you really think that AL Qaeda won’t be back if we leave all together. We have NEVER left those that we defended so vulnerable. I DON’T EVEN LIKE THE FACT THAT WE ARE THERE…BUT IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR THEM AND FOR THE MEMORY OF MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE DIED TRYING TO HELP!

Afganastan has needed help for a LONG TIME, but why is it that no one is questioning Sen Obama fixation on Pakistan? Are we just going to switch battlefields? Sure sounds like it to me.

And if you have the audacity of hope to get a straight answer from his team….you really do believe in change!

In the 1950s, in the wake of Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” plan, Pakistan obtained a 125 megawatt heavy-water reactor from Canada. After India’s first atomic test in May 1974, Pakistan immediately sought to catch up by attempting to purchase a reprocessing plant from France. After France declined due to U.S. resistance, Pakistan began to assemble a uranium enrichment plant via materials from the black market and technology smuggled through A.Q. Khan. In 1976 and 1977, two amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act were passed, prohibiting American aid to countries pursuing either reprocessing or enrichment capabilities for nuclear weapons programs.

These two, the Symington and Glenn Amendments, were passed in response to Pakistan’s efforts to achieve nuclear weapons capability; but to little avail. Washington’s cool relations with Islamabad soon improved. During the Reagan administration, the US turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear weapon’s program. In return for Pakistan’s cooperation and assistance in the mujahideen’s war against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Reagan administration awarded Pakistan with the third largest economic and military aid package after Israel and Egypt. Despite the Pressler Amendment, which made US aid contingent upon the Reagan administration’s annual confirmation that Pakistan was not pursuing nuclear weapons capability, Reagan’s “laissez-faire” approach to Pakistan’s nuclear program seriously aided the proliferation issues that we face today.

Not only did Pakistan continue to develop its own nuclear weapons program, but A.Q. Khan was instrumental in proliferating nuclear technology to other countries as well. Further, Pakistan’s progress toward nuclear capability led to India’s return to its own pursuit of nuclear weapons, an endeavor it had given up after its initial test in 1974. In 1998, both countries had tested nuclear weapons. A uranium-based nuclear device in Pakistan; and a plutonium-based device in India
Over the years of America’s on again off again support of Pakistan, Musharraf continues to be skeptical of his American allies. In 2002 he is reported to have told a British official that his “great concern is that one day the United States is going to desert me. They always desert their friends.” Musharraf was referring to Viet Nam, Lebanon, Somalia … etc., etc., etc.,

Taking the war to Pakistan is perhaps the most foolish thing America can do. Obama is not the first to suggest it, and we already have sufficient evidence of the potentially negative repercussions of such an action. On January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan. Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area. In a nuclear state like Pakistan, this was not only unfortunate, it was outright stupid. Pakistan has 160 million Arabs (better than half of the population of the entire Arab world). Pakistan also has the support of China and a nuclear arsenal.

I predict that America’s military action in the Middle East will enter the canons of history alongside Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Holocaust, in kind if not in degree. The Bush administration’s war on terror marks the age in which America has again crossed a line that many argue should never be crossed. Call it preemption, preventive war, the war on terror, or whatever you like; there is a sense that we have again unleashed a force that, like a boom-a-rang, at some point has to come back to us. The Bush administration argues that American military intervention in the Middle East is purely in self-defense. Others argue that it is pure aggression. The consensus is equally as torn over its impact on international terrorism. Is America truly deterring future terrorists with its actions? Or is it, in fact, aiding the recruitment of more terrorists?

The last thing the United States should do at this point and time is to violate yet another state’s sovereignty. Beyond being wrong, it just isn’t very smart. We all agree that slavering in this country was wrong; as was the decimation of the Native American populations. We all agree that the Holocaust and several other other acts of genocide in the twentieth century were wrong. So when will we finally admit that American military intervention in the Middle East is also wrong?

You Republicans that can hold your noses and vote for Obama need to look at the facts before you do that. He is not for America, no way, and you will leave the party of middle class people to vote for him? I can’t believe that.

You have not lived through all the wars that I have if you can spout these kinds of words about the american military that have fought for our freedom and thiose of the countless nations that are free today because of it. My 2 brothers died in WW 2 fighting for freedom, the A bomb stopped the war before another million were killed. John Maska were you even alive then, I doubt it, I was and I don’t like war either, but we were attacked on 9/11 and that was a terrorist attack by islam, we are fighting islam right now, do you want them over here again, do you want them to come to your door or your town, i don’t. I will fight. Obama will hand over our precious country to Islam and the rest of the world will then groan, where is the help that they always gave us, but we will be fighting for our lives right here on our own homefront.