On Eve of Obama Trip, National Security Debate Tightens
Almost since Barack Obama announced his candidacy, one of the most compelling questions asked about his aspirations to be commander-in-chief was this: How Can He…..?
How Can He be ready?
How Can He say he’s experienced?
How Can He know how brutal the world really is?
How Can He persuade our friends he’s right and our enemies that he’s serious?
How Can He…..
For a candidate with as little resume-based foreign policy experience, these questions loom large for Obama. They were hinted at until Hillary Clinton gave them a “3 am in the morning” moniker and have now been part and parcel of John McCain’s criticism of Obama on all variety of national security and foreign policy issues. This week’s Washington Post poll showed a yawning confidence gap between McCain and Obama (72 percent McCain, 48 percent Obama) on the narrow question of who would “be a good commander-in-chief.”
But events this week may give Obama a chance to close that gap on McCain. Not immediately, but over time. And since the Obama strategy is predicated on closing the stature gap on national security and foreign policy in the summer so as to maximize built-in Obama advantages on domestic issues in the fall, this week may, let me emphasize, may be seen months later as a turning point.
Here’s why: Developments this week on Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq gave Obama an ability to challenge ot only the criticism lodged against him so far, but to say events have reshaped the debate on terms closer Obama’s priorities and world view than, say, six weeks ago when the general election began.
First, Afghanistan: McCain this week backed Obama’s call for more combat troops in Afghanistan. He had resisted that for months because he didn’t want to siphon troops from Iraq. McCain said Afghanistan needed more troops than Obama (McCain says three brigades and Obama says two brigades) AND a new military strategy — a re-think, as it were, comparable to that which led to the new counter-insurgency approach in Iraq. On this, many analysts agree, but no new strategy can be implemented without more troops and McCain was behind Obama on that call. McCain also lost ground when he offered three different explanations about where the additional combat forces would come from (the U.S., then NATO, then maybe the U.S. and NATO). Yes, McCain can assert Obama missed many hearings on Afghanistan in the Foreign Relations Committee and didn’t hold any on the NATO mission there as the relevant sub-committee chairman, but McCain missed even more Armed Services hearings on these and related subjects and, honestly, who in America decides their vote for the presidency based on committee attendance or sub-committee hearings held? Answer: no one — not even committee staff.
Second, Iran: the Bush administration’s move to send Under Secretary of State William Burns to Geneva this weekend for the P5+1 talks on Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions and to green light the opening of an interest section in Iran show a newfound openness to diplomacy. It is true that these two moves may only be tactical and part of an elaborate set of confidence-building exercises growing out of numerous back-channel conversations. As such, they can amount to a lot or nothing. No commitments are made and no face can be lost if nothing good comes of these endeavors. Equally possible, however, is that they are small steps the administration now believes may lead somewhere, for surely these options have been available for many years and were ignored. The larger political significance of this for Obama is that he and his surrogates can argue Obama said talk and the administration is talking. Is it direct negotiations at the presidential level? No. Is that distinction important as a matter of policy and state craft? You bet. Does that distinction undermine the value of the “Obama said talk and we’re talking” talking point? Not one bit.
Lastly, word today from the White House that it agreed with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki that a “time horizon” is worth contemplating for U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq makes Obama’s push for a “timetable” for troop withdrawals sound less threatening.
Is there a difference between a “horizon” and a “timetable”? Yes. A time horizon is negotiated with the Iraqi government and makes the Maliki government co-equal partners in evaluating the security situation and sharing in the planning for troop withdrawals, thereby enhancing, potentially, its standing in the nation generally and with its Shiite backers specifically. A timetable is dictated by the U.S. president and is, generally speaking, less concerned with Iraqi security needs on the ground. It is concerned, principally, with the safe exit of U.S. combat forces, not the safety of those left behind without a U.S.-led counter-insurgency strategy. That doesn’t mean chaos and bloodshed will inevitably ensue, but it does mean the order of priority is driven by, as Obama said again this week, a new mission: “end this war.”
The upside for Obama the administration now talks more and more about U.S. forces assuming “over-watch” operations (see White House statement below) in which Iraqi forces take the lead and U.S. forces monitor and assist. With this work well underway, the Obama timetable for withdrawals looks more plausible so long as progress on the ground continues.
As a matter of substance, the differences between a “time horizon” and “timetable” are important. But as a matter of style and semantics, it’s the kind of difference that can be easily blurred or assumed to be more about word games and political posturing than military strategy. Should that impression take hold, the advantage will accrue to Obama. The “time horizon” move also allows the Obama campaign and its surrogates to say, with more than some justification, the idea of systematic troop withdrawals is no longer a defeatist strategy (and, of course, Obama would never concede it was in the first place). The larger point is the “time horizon” language gives Obama more credibility on the future of Iraq, even as McCain seeks to undermine his credibility for opposing the very troop surge that now allows for more robust troop withdrawal planning.
On this last issue, of the “time horizon,” I wanted to provide all of today’s statements in the order in which they were received. Note the time lag between the White House statement and the others)
White House statement at 10:51 a.m.:
President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki spoke yesterday in their regularly scheduled secure video conference, about a range of matters including the improving security situation and the performance of Iraqi Security Forces across Iraq, from Basra, to Maysan, Baghdad and Sadr City, and Mosul. The two leaders welcomed the recent visit of Prime Minister Erdogan to Baghdad and the successful visit of Prime Minister Maliki to the UAE. They also discussed ongoing initiatives to follow security gains with Iraqi investment in its people, infrastructure, cities, and towns, which will be aided by a $21 billion supplemental budget now before the Iraqi parliament.
In the context of these improving political, economic, and security conditions, the President and the Prime Minister discussed the ongoing negotiations to establish a normalized bilateral relationship between Iraq and the United States. The leaders agreed on a common way forward to conclude these negotiations as soon as possible, and noted in particular the progress made toward completing a broad strategic framework agreement that will build on the Declaration of Principles signed last November, and include areas of cooperation across many fields, including economics, diplomacy, health, culture, education, and security.
In the area of security cooperation, the President and the Prime Minister agreed that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals — such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq. The President and Prime Minister agreed that the goals would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal.
The two leaders welcomed in this regard the return of the final surge brigade to the United States this month, and the ongoing transition from a primary combat role for U.S. forces to an overwatch role, which focuses on training and advising Iraqi forces, and conducting counter-terror operations in support of those forces.
This transition and the subsequent reduction in U.S. forces from Iraq is a testament to the improving capacity of Iraq’s Security Forces and the success of joint operations that were initiated under the new strategy put in place by the President and the Prime Minister in January 2007.
Here’s McCain’s statement at 4:02 p.m:
“Progress between the United States and Iraq on a time horizon for American troop presence is further evidence that the surge has succeeded. Most of the U.S. forces used in the surge have already been withdrawn. When a further conditions-based withdrawal of U.S. forces is possible, it will be because we and our Iraqi partners built on the successes of the surge strategy, which Senator Obama opposed, predicted would fail, voted against and campaigned against in the primary. When we withdraw, we will withdraw with honor and victory. An honorable and victorious withdrawal would not be possible if Senator Obama’s views had prevailed. An artificial timetable based on political expediency would have led to disaster and could still turn success into defeat. If we had followed Senator Obama’s policy, Iraq would have descended into chaos, American casualties would be far higher, and the region would be destabilized.”
And here’s Obama’s response at 5:35 p.m. from spokesman Bill Burton:
“Barack Obama has consistently urged the Bush Administration to negotiate the redeployment of our troops in the context of talks about a Status of Forces Agreement. Todays announcement represents a step in the right direction, as the Administration has shifted from its opposition to any talks with Iraq about the removal of our combat troops, and specified a change in mission for American forces. Now, instead of vague illusions to a general time horizon, its time to pressure Iraqs leaders to reach the political accommodation necessary for long-term stability, and to refocus on strengthening our military and finishing the fight in Afghanistan.”
truth be told we should have never been in iraq inthe first place,now that the repubs see that a bit of diplomacy could work they want to use baracks ideas and put a twist on them and cll them their own. obama 08
Is Barack Eligible to be President?
According to the state laws in Hawaii that were in effect at the time of Obama’s birth, a child must be born to “TWO” U.S. Citizen parents (this law was in effect from “December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986,“ which means it applies to Barack’s birth.
But only Barack’s mom was a U.S. Citizen. Papa Obama was a citizen of Kenya.
Well, the Hawaiian law stipulates:
…If only one parent was a U.S. Citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least FIVE of which had to be after the age of 16.”
It appears that Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means she was shy of the 21 years of age required by the law. In other words, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship. No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
I read where Iraq is considered a “success.” Only papers preferred to use Wimbledon on front page.
I would like for you to travel to Obama sights so we could get a true picture of events. See if his visit is truly a success!
Susan Tenofsky
smtenof@yahoo.com
Finally there appears to be a time line being discussed for withdrawal of troops in Iraq, as requested by the Iraqi government. Also negotiation and diplomacy are being tried in Iraq and Iran by the Bush Administration and the respective governments. This is what Senator Obama has been suggesting all along.
The Bush Administration has proved that we cannot kill all the insurgents and that our presence in Iraq is a recruiting tool for the extremists.
Sorry to say that 24 hours in a country that we have lost millions and that so much has happened and will happen will not convince me that Obama is qualified to be our next president or to even begin to have the knowledge of foreign policy or even be able to lead in protecting the American people….All of this is for self-serving political gains…I am a democrat that will not be voting for Obama, I find him not trustworthy.This is all a big show and his hope and change has ran out for me!
we need to be sensible, times are hard and how can we possibly put our country and livlyhood in the hands of an inexperience man that has proven to be just the same old politics…
We need to carefully review..why now this trip?? This war has been going on for years and we did nit see Obama going over there in the past few years..this man calculated and his actions are for self serving political gains…Lets not be blind-sighted..Let us not forget he quickly dumped his friend mentor who is a radical racist anti-American aFter TWENTY YEARS..WHY? SELF SERVING POLITICAL GAIN..
oBAMA WILL DO AND SAY ANYTHING…DEPENDING ON THE AUDIENCE… DON’T BE BLIND-SIGHTED..REMEMBER THIS IS OUR BELOVED COUNTRY AND OUR LIVELIHOOD.
Three words: Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. In all three, John McCain or President Bush have moved toward Obama’s judgment. It’s quite remarkable!!!! Afghanistan – more troops (McSame resisted but then called for more after Obama announced), Iraq – time line (Bush now is for time horizon and Maliki supports Obama) and Iran – direct negotiations (Bush has 3rd in command sit in on talks with Iran this weekend and there is talk of a diplomatic mission in Iran). Looks like Obama’s judgment is beating McSame’s experience in spades. One more thing — McSame likes to say, “If Senator Obama had his way, the surge would have never happened.” No Senator McCain, if Obama had his way, we wouldn’t have gone into Iraq in the first place, lost more than 4,000 brave men and woman, spent a trillion dollars in money we’ve borrowed from China and let Al Quaida and the Taliban thrive in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Wake up America, it’s time for President Barrack Hussein Obama (and yes, I’ve used his middle name because it is not a dirty word). I was a die hard republican and this will be the first time in my life (I just turned 47) that I will be voting for a democratic nominee for president.
Obama is trying to ride the coat-tails of victory as President Bush works at closing a chapter on the Iraqi War as he always said he would. For all of Obama’s tricky word plays and postering, I don’t think people will actually believe him. He’s green. History will read victory for President Bush. For that reason, McCain will surely deserve to be president as he understands the demands of war and of its soldiers, his first priority, not Obama’s.
Linda AZ
NICE TRY DAVE:
According to snopes.com:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
Even if both of Obama’s parents were NOT citizens of the United States, Obama, by virtue of being born on US soil (Hawaii) would be a US citizen according to the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Since Hawaii became a state on Aug. 21, 1959, and Obama was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961, Obama is a US citizen.
Now, JOHN MCCAIN is the one actually affected by the conditions you stated, since he was born in the Panama Canal Zone to two US citizens, and therefore is a US citizen himself.
I am sitting here writing this in Iraq so I believe I have at least a somewhat unique prespective on this issue. The timeline suggested reflects the view of one Iraqi leader and certainly does not reflect the opinion of the general population as far as I have seen. That being said, the confort level in requesting a timeline has only been able to be accomplished because of the surge and the sucess we have achieved in this country. Mr. Obama opposed this surge and up until recently denied our success for purley political reasons. I also find it humerous that so many Obama supporter have been behind him on the basis that he will end our involvement in this area. This is simply not the case as he is now requesting a surge in Afganistan. Where will the anti-war crowd now turn?
[...] Be Focusing on Afghanistan• Obama Arrives in Afghanistan to Tour War Zone | VIDEO• BOURBON ROOM: Major Garrett on Obama’s Trip Abroad Source [...]
Since Obama has been against the war from the start, voted against the Surge and has up to now not experienced the success or the troops and the Iraqis with a visit, he has no standing or right to claim any type of the Victory. He has not helped defend the safety of the American people. NO experience.
I read where Iraq is considered a “success.” Only papers preferred to use Wimbledon on front page.
I would like for you to travel to Obama sights so we could get a true picture of events.
A “time horizon to meet aspirational goals” means “a timeline for troop withdrawal” whether you like it or not. For the record, al-Maliki agrees with Obama on a 16-month draw-down of troops in Iraq whether you like it or not.
Finally, for those who claim Obama lacks “experience” in foreign policy, harken back to George W. Bush’s 2000 campaign and his alarming ignorance at the time. When questioned about how he would tackle foreign policy issues, he said he would “delegate.” Remember?
* * *
From George W. Bush 2000 Presidential Campaign Brochure:
“As President Bush will order an immediate review of overseas deployments: no U.S. troops should be in harm’s way unless America’s interests are at stake, no U.S. troops will ever serve under UN command.”
Fact, June 2008: “The Iraqi government may request an extension of the United Nations security mandate authorizing a U.S. military presence, due to expire in December….”
Comment by Dave
July 19th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Is Barack Eligible to be President?
According to the state laws in Hawaii that were in effect at the time of Obama’s birth, a child must be born to “TWO” U.S. Citizen parents (this law was in effect from “December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986,“ which means it applies to Barack’s birth.
But only Barack’s mom was a U.S. Citizen. Papa Obama was a citizen of Kenya.
Well, the Hawaiian law stipulates:
…If only one parent was a U.S. Citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least FIVE of which had to be after the age of 16.”
It appears that Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means she was shy of the 21 years of age required by the law. In other words, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship. No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Dave, truth be told, McCain wasn’t born in the United States. According to U.S. laws, anyone vieing for the Presidency has to be a naturally born U.S. citzen.
Are you willing to advocate the same principle towards McCain?
I’m still a Republican, but I won’t be voting for McCain.
He was for Obama’s trip before he was against it.
He was against focusing on Afghanistan before he was for it.
He wanted permanent bases in Iraq before he didn’t.
And he threw Phil Graham under the “Straight Talk Express”
I was a BIG McCain supporter in 2000 (and before). Now I don’t know who John McCain is anymore. I doubt I really knew in 2000. McCain has fully plugged into the Bush Crime Machine.
If you’re a Republican who can’t bear to see the Bush/Cheney Administration extended another 4 years, please please vote for Obama or Bob Barr or just stay home on election day. The group that has hijacked the GOP for personal profit and the ruin of our nation must be stopped. Bob Barr is a good man and deserves to win. But if you can live with an Obama Presidency, vote Obama.
Frightening. With less than 4 months until the election, Obama hopes in ONE week to gain foreign policy/national security experience and to try to show some semblance of being a commander. Thus, the screwup being reported over Obama’s involvement in Iraq. Biden is one Obama’s advisers and we wonder whether Biden is involved in this screwup along with Obama. We are told Obama has 300 foreign policy advisers, and no two of these advisers can agree on anything. Thus, the Obama flip flops and these srewups. Pray for America.
It is all a moot point. I am more than sure if Obama some how wins- his life will indeed be cut short. I am not even past one of Fox News own being involved behind the scenes. It boggles the mind that every 60 seconds or so Fox has a negative report to run on Obama. I know for a fact not one human is all good, so the question that begs to be asked is, why do they never shine any bad light on McCain? This election is showing a lot and some people are turning a blind eye and calling it politics. But one day, maybe not even in this life time, the total truth will come to light.
RE:
July 19th, 2008 12:50 AM Eastern
On Eve of Obama Trip, National Security Debate Tightens
by Major Garrett
——————-
Thank you for wecloming me
And allow me to congratulate you for your present article
LETTER TO SENATOR BARACK OBAMA
Montreal, February 20, 2008
SENATOR OBAMA ,
The whole world has its eyes on you, on The United States Of America and its people.
Everyone expects you to be democratically elected and see that something happen in America.
In March 1983, one of humanity’s most famous spokesmen, Pope John Paul II, came to our country – ‘Haîti’ – and loudly proclaimed what each and every one of us had been whispering:
‘Something must change here.’
Today, more than ever, a lot of people of The United States of America stand up, longing for something and working to make something happen.
And, like in March 9, 1983, beloved Haiti, History – (which from then and now on rests in thy hands) – tells thee: “it is now time to let people speak to thee of love!’, let’s say today’: ‘Go thou America ahead and show us thy true countenance in a positive light.’ It is up to everyone to play his or her part in order to let thee regain thy mark of excellence !”
With this letter, I am communicating with You, Senator Obama, and with the whole people of The United States of America.
You offer this country what it takes to be a ‘Wonderfull Land.’ Yes, let us say ‘with a great people living together.’
Go thou, America, go ahead, following in the footsteps of one of thy sons who is now becoming one of thy statesmen.
With this in mind, Mr.Obama, to whom else could I entrust this letter sent to his Holiness Pope John Paul II when he set foot on Haitian soil for the first time, as well as its acknowledgment by the Vatican?
That letter to Pope John Paul II is intended to draw attention to the problem posed by anti-Black discrimination and its negative repercussions on the advancement of scientific progress in the West, and more precisely in the realm of Optics.
In the Western world, according to Newton’s widely accepted theory, white is considered to be the synthesis of all colors. Actually, the opposite is true. White constitutes the analysis or ‘visible’ decoding of light or color, whereas black is its synthesis or ‘invisible’ composition.
In other words, darkness or blackness and, we might add, “Black Holes’”- a scientific misnomer designating invisible stars or ‘Black Suns’ – are a source of energy and light.
That basic raw material of light energy culminates, in its most radiant form, in the neutralization of all the colors of the spectrum in the form of so-called “white light.”
Therefore “absolute blackness”, the absorption of all the colors, is a divisible component of light. Needless to say, Newton’s theory gives only a partial interpretation of the notion of light, by excluding black. Our contribution aims at demonstrating that the black color is not only an integral part of the color process, but its true synthesis. Light is therefore shown to be a divisible whole comprising an intensity or color scale in which black is the invisible or ‘absorbed’ form of the energy in question.
Allow me, Senator Obama, in order to support my statement concerning Black Holes and radiation, to pose a question asked by Hubert Reeves, Doctor of nuclear astrophysics and Scientific Consultant to NASA:
“What would have become of the Sun, if it were plunged into a high temperature radiance like the one that existed at the beginning of the Universe? [our translation]”
“Instead of emitting light, it would absorb it and, in the end, it would be completely reabsorbed into the cosmic fluid.”
The cosmic fluid is what, due to an “optical mistake”, is called “darkness” or the “blackness of space”. We are talking about the electromagnetic flux, that immeasurable ocean in which the planets and stars are bathed, like the sea which links all the continents together. Darkness is thus “The Sea of Space.”
“What would have happened if, instead of an ordinary star like the “White Sun”, a Black Hole or “Black Sun” were injected into that primordial radiation?
“According to Einsteinian Physics, a Black Hole is a place where gravity is so formidably intense that nothing can escape it, not even visible light. Such a hole should suck in and absorb radiation and increase its own mass: E=MC2, always.”
“But after Einstein came Bohr, Heisenberg, and Quantum Physic. From then on, nothing was the same as before.
“The Einsteinian version of the Black Hole is equivalent to a statement that the matter inside the Black Hole is definitely there to stay, in that volume of space. Let us quote Hubert Reeves: “Such an absolute statement is thus contrary to the “Quantum spirit”, affirming that nothing is definitely localized in one place. There is always a probability of escape. If the enclosing wall is too high, a tunnel will be dug; if the prisoners are patient, they will escape. One has only to wait. [our translation]”
“According to that principle, Black Holes “evaporate.” Matter constantly escapes as radiation. Black Holes “shine!” Their surfaces behave like those of any body heated to a certain temperature and that radiation endlessly feeds that marvelous “Cosmic Fluid” which, wrongly and in bad faith, people keep calling “Darkness.”
Nigra sum “sed” formosa. Yes.
But should we not say instead, I am black “and” comely?
Darkness, which is both source and vehicle of light, does not have to defend itself for being the beautiful and infinitely discreet raw material of the Universe. Darkness is the “Mother of the Universe.”
Also, beautiful and discreet art thou, Haiti. Discreet, yes, but never outshone! Just like the Black Virgin who inspires and sheds her love on thee from the hilltop and even beyond Cité Soleil (Sun City).
Our purpose was to offer a more constructive approach aiming at correcting the abusive traditional, so-called scientific, theories of Optics. That is why, we wrote to that authentic witness to the signs of this age, His Holiness Pope John Paul II, the prophet of the new era.
Congratulations to You, Sir, and congratulations to the people of The United States Of America, for having made it possible for this day to mark the beginning of a “New Era of Hope !”
Lucien Bonnet
PLease, SEE :
LETTER TO POPE JOHN-PAUL II
in ‘BILL A RI AND THERE WAS LIGHT !
http://www.contact-canadahaiti.ca
LINKS (JANUARY 12, 2008)
UBC astronomer makes first map of dark matter
CTV.ca – 11 Jan 2008
For the first time, a team of UBC scientists have mapped the elusive “dark matter” in a supercluster of stars in the night sky.
New map lets scientists ’see’ dark matter CBC News
Astronomers get best look yet at dark matter surrounding galaxies The Canadian Press
Ars Technica – Kazinform – InTheNews.co.uk – Daily Mail
all 26 news articles »
Who you gonna go for: McCain, right then wrong now, or Obama wrong then right now?