About Me

Name: Armanius
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Debate: Missed Opportunities for McCain

I was disappointed with McCain's performance in the debate. Obama left openings in my mind that McCain could have used to make his case to the American people that he, John S. McCain, is the person that voters must choose to lead this nation. Overall, I thought McCain did slightly better than Obama, who as always refused to give definite answers in response to several questions. The most negative aspect of the debate yesterday was Obama constantly trying to interrupt McCain, which I thought was very unpresidential and disrespectful.
 
Here are some of my thoughts on how McCain could have made yesterday night HIS night, and I am paraphrasing here given that I don't have a transcript:
 
Economy
 
Obama said: I want to cut taxes for 95% of Americans.
 
McCain should have said: I want to cut taxes for ALL Americans. I will not play class warfare and penalize one class over another.
 
Obama said: McCain wants to cut taxes for businesses that are already paying low taxes because of corporate loop holes and which are not even asking for lower taxes.
 
McCain should have said: The Federal Government is already receiving record amounts of revenues from both business taxes and income taxes from individuals.
 
Obama said: Jobs are being taken overseas.
 
McCain should have said: Senator Obama, your plan will drive even more job overseas.
 
McCain did say: Ireland has 11% business tax versus the 35% business tax in U.S. Businesses will take their operations to places where it's cheaper to conduct business, which is sort of what I proposed above. But not as clear to the viewer at home.
 
Foreign Policy
 
Obama said: [On the success of the surge] There is still no political stability in Iraq.
 
McCain should have immediately asked Obama a rhetorical question: Senator Obama, do you believe that we must win in Iraq?
 
Obama would have probably said (after equivocating) that he wants to win in Iraq, and that his plan was for Iraq to assume responsibility for itself.
 
McCain should have then said: We need to have political stability in Iraq. There is only political stability, if there is security. There is only security, because of military victory. There is only military victory today, because of the surge. And you Senator Obama, opposed the surge in 2007, and you still oppose the surge today even though hindsight is 20/20. In short, you do not believe victory in Iraq is essential.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Kinky Friedman on O'Reilly: cried during McCain's speech

Democrat Kinky Friedman was on O'Reilly tonight and said that the last three minutes of McCain's speech moved him to tears. Friedman was hilarious. He said that he was moved to tears, after first going through 53 minutes of diabetic commatose! (So was I.) Friedman said that the only other time he cried in politics was when Adlai Stevenson lost the presidential race in 1956! Friedman finished the interview by predicting that Sarah Palin is going to "... waltze McCain into the White House. He [McCain] is a big enough man to enjoy the ride. Contrast with Obama, who was not big enough to take someone with the charisma of Hillary ..."
 
It was a very entertaining interview.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama in O'Reilly Factor - WITH PRECONDITIONS!!!

As you all know, Obama decided that he would finally allow Bill O'Reilly to interview him in an attempt to steal some thunder from the RNC. Obama and his staff apparently had to come to terms with Fox News that O'Reilly would not attempt to embarass Obama! Along the same lines, Elizabeth Hasselback from "The View" stated that "unlike the wife of another political candidate, who shall remain nameless, Cindy McCain did not come to cohost The View with a list of topics we weren't allowed to touch ..."
 
So the question of the day is: if Obama is willing to meet with terrorists and dictators without preconditions, why would he not meet with Bill O'Reilly without preconditions??
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama: McCain doesn't know what he's up against!

Obama said yesterday “I don’t intend to lose this election. John McCain doesn’t know what he’s up against. He can talk all he wants about Britney and Paris, but I don’t have time for that mess."
Aren't his statements totally idiotic? He clearly is dillusional like Nancy Pelosi. Obama really believes that he is what the world has been waiting for. Does he really think he's the second coming of the Messiah? That's the tone of his statement that McCain "doesn't know what he's up against." Yeah, Obama, you are the juggernaut right? You are indeed what you've been waiting for. A loone! And then Obama goes on to say McCain "can talk all he wants about Britney and Paris, but I don't have time for that mess." The irony of it all -- who keeps bringing up Britney and Paris every time when speaking during $8 million fundraisers that only rich people can afford to attend? Obama himself!!! When was the last time McCain said anything about Britney and Paris? When was the last time the ad was even played on TV? So Obama has no time for that mess, but he keeps it bringing "that mess" up over and over and over again.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's blame game is getting old - SHUT UP!!!

Obama is at it again accusing McCain of "questioning his patriotism and character" just because McCain said that Obama was "legislating failure" in Iraq. For someone who prides himself as an intellectual, Obama sure is missing the intellect to understand the difference between questioning judgment versus questioning patriotism. Mr. Obama, if you ever come across this blog, here is some help for you. Questioning your patriotism would be something along the lines of "Obama wants us to lose the war, because he doesn't care about America." Questioning your judgment would be more like "Obama believes that the outcome of the war in Iraq is not relevant to America's national security, so he doesn't care if America loses the war in Iraq." Get it?
 
All kidding aside though, Obama is not lacking in intellect. He is only lacking in honesty. And yes, I am personally questioning your character, Mr. Obama. While Obama and his campaign constantly harp about McCain's purported "attack" ads, what is Obama doing? Each time he opens his mouth, he talks about how McCain does not care about the average American. Obama talks about how McCain has been bought by the oil companies. Obama talks about how McCain has been bought by Georgian lobbying. If that is not questioning McCain's character and patriotism, what is it? Does that sound like questioning McCain's judgment? Certainly not. Obama is questioning McCain's honesty and integrity. In the real world, what Obama is saying is that McCain is taking bribes. Hey, that sure sounds like a crime eh? In essence, Obama is accusing McCain of being a criminal. Wow, that sure sounds like questioning McCain's character to me. But of course Obama never attacks his opponents character. No, not Mr. Obama!
 
So here it is to you, Mr. Obama. Shut the hell up and just talk about change and your pay grade!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Saddleback: McCain and Obama differences

The "Showdown" at Saddleback was of course not an explicit showdown. It was not a debate. It was a Q&A answer where Pastor Rick Warren asked questions to each of the candidates without the presence of the other candidate. Warren asked the same questions to both candidates. While it was not a debate, this format actually worked great in differentiating the candidates. Here are my thoughts on the "showdown." This is not a comprehensive list of the differences, just my initial observations. I will likely discuss some times in more detail later. In interest of full disclosure, I am a McCain supporter. For the full transcript of the Warren interviews, click here.
 
General observations:
 
(1) Obama spoke in generalities and avoided making any bright line stances on issues. Obama failed to give definite answers to some of the questions, and took a much more "careful" approach by attempting to not offend anyone.
(2) McCain was much more decisive in his answers, and often showing much more passion for his beliefs than Obama. There were a couple of instances where McCain gave his answers before Warren was done with the question. Obama campaign is accusing McCain of having heard the questions during Obama's portion of the interview.
(3) Obama's lack of significant life changing experiences, which is partly due because he is much younger than McCain, really showed in his answers. As Obama talked about his past experiences as part of some of the answers he gave, there was no real sense of revealing who he is, and making an emotional connection with the audience.
(4) In contrast, McCain's experiences really made a connection with the audience. I personally got choked up a couple of times, particularly when McCain said that his toughest choice was to forego the option of early release from Vietnamese captivity which resulted in three or so additional years of torture. When McCain said that, you could see that it is still a difficult and emotional subject for him to talk about.
 
National security and foreign policy:
 
(1) Obama again talked about obtaining internaitonal consensus and support to act. He wisely strayed from saying that America needs U.N. approval before acting, but then followed up by saying that America still needs international support. He used Bosnia as an example of not having U.N. approval while at the same time having international support. Obama talked about "containing" evil when asked by Warren whether or not evil exists, and whether America should leave it alone, negotiate with it, contain it, or defeat it. Obama's answer was contain evil, and used the genocide in Dafour as an example of evil. Obama also pointed out that America has domestic evil and that America should approach confrontations of evil with humility, because America has been guilty of doing evil, even though America may have had good intentions.
(2) McCain on the other hand said that evil must be "defeated." McCain didn't even hesitate for a second in providing that answer, unlike Obama's calculated and measured response. McCain talked about defeating Al Qaida saying that nobody attacks our country and goes unscathed. This again was a very powerful response made by McCain as he said that he will follow Bin Laden to the gates of hell if necessary to bring Bin Laden to justice.
 
Economy:
 
(1) Obama said that rich people are the families that make above $250K annually, and called the middle and lower class families who make below $150K. I am not sure what Obama thinks about families that make between $150K and $250K. Obama said that people above $250K would see a moderate increase in taxes, while people under $150K would see a tax cut. Obama's reasoning for increased taxes is that the government needs more money to pay for services that the country wants. And Obama said that the government needs money to pay for the wars.
(2) McCain said that there is really not a definition in terms of annual salary as to who is rich and who is not. Rather, rich can be sometimes defined by having a family, a house, and being happy. McCain said that if Warren really wants a dollar figure, how about $5 million. McCain then quickly said that his opponents are going to have a field day with his $5 million statement, but that his point is that he wants everyone to pay less taxes. He said that tax revenues are not problem. It's the irresponsible spending of tax payers dollars such as using $3 million of taxpayer's money in studying bear DNA. McCain joked that he wasn't sure if the DNA study was related to a criminal proceeding or paternity testing.
 
Social, moral, and ethical issues:
 
(1) Obama refused to give an unequivocal answer as to when does a baby receive rights, when Warren talked about abortion. Obama stated firmly that he believes in Roe v. Wade. And then he said that he wants to pass programs to encourage woman to not have abortions by providing them with options to keep the babies alive. Obama said that Bush's anti-abortion policies have not reduced the number of abortions (he is wrong). Obama also stated that most women who undergo abortion are not making these decisions without carefully thinking about it. Obama generally said that he would continue to support embryo stem cell research, but that he hopes that stem cell adult research will eventually curtail the need for embryo stem cell research. Obama said his selfishness as a youth, which led him to use drugs and drink, was one of his greatest moral failure.
(2) McCain said he is firmly pro-life, and strongly said that babies have rights at the time of conception. He also talked about adoptions when Warren asked about a federal plan to help the 140 or so million orphans around the world. McCain gave an example about the adoption of a daughter that Cindy McCain met when doing some work with Mother Theresa. McCain said that new skin stem cell research makes debate about the need of embryo stem cell research moot. McCain said that his failed first marriage was his greatest moral failure.
 
Flip flops and reaching accross party lines
 
(1) Obama talked about welfare reform as a change in position. However, he was not very clear which direction he changed to. His example of reaching across party lines was campaign ethics and finance. He said he reached to McCain in his first year in the senate. But he forgot to mention that he then backtracked after being criticized by fellow Dems, which actually infuriated McCain.
(2) McCain's flip flop was offshore drilling. He said that he reached across party lines on issues like torture, out of control spending, and climante change.
 
List 3 people whom you would rely heavily upon in your administration
 
(1) For some odd reason, Obama decided to talk about his wife and grandmother first. Then he said that "in terms of administration" he would rely on more than three people. He went to to list Sam Nunn, Dick Lugar, Tom Colburn, and Ted Kennedy.
(2) McCain's three advisors would be General David Petraeus, Representative John Lewis (D-Ga), and Meg Whitman, CEO of Ebay.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberals and Moral Relativism

Fictitious standard of morality. That's what a former Jesse Jackson advisor named Ronald Walters said tonight in Hannity & Colmes, while arguing that a presidential candidate's moral values are not relevant. Walters said that infidelity is not something to really dwell into, because no one knows all the "circumstances" surrounding the infidelity. In other words, Walters believe that there are situations in which infidelity is excused depending on the circumstances. Walters was responding to Sean Hannity's argument that if a husband (i.e. John Edwards) cannot keep his vows to his wife, then why should voters believe what that unfaithful husband says?
 
Alan Colmes then turned the question around to conservative guest Amanda Carpenter, and started saying that McCain cannot be trusted, because he himself admitted that he had cheated on his first wife thirty years ago. Colmes kept asking if there was any difference between McCain and Edwards. Carpenter didn't have a good response, but I do. I doubt that Colmes will ever read my blog, but I am going to write it anyway.
 
First of all, let me make this clear -- I believe that infidelity is wrong. There are no excuses. There is nothing that justifies the breaking of a sacred vow. And in that sense, I do believe that men like McCain and Edwards committed sins, and need to be closely scrutinized to see if they are indeed people who will hold on to promises that they make.
 
That being said, Edwards' infidelity goes beyond just pure sexual indiscredtion or a momentary lapse of judgment. Edwards not only broke his promise to his wife, but then he lied to cover it up. He lied repeatedly and only came clean when he was trapped. To cover up the infidelity, Edwards has broken several campaign finance and tax laws by paying off his mistress Rillie Hunter as well as Andrew Young, Edwards' former campaign aide (and alleged friend)/  Young took the fall for Edwards by claiming that the mistress' baby was his. Edwards obviously did not care about Young, or else he would not have asked him to take the fall. Edwards fathered a child, and was/is perfectly willing to abandon that child to the life of single parenthood. Last but not least, Edwards campaigned for president under the banner of "moral values." He is not only a cheater, and liar. He is also a hypocrite.
 
If McCain also engaged in an elaborate law breaking cover up scheme of his infidelity and child abandonment, then I'd harp about McCain too.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Irony of seeing liberals turn on the Clintons

I was suffering insomnia (again) and had nothing else to watch on TV. So I figure that I'd get a few laughs by watching a re-run of Hardball. It was so incredibly ironic to see all these liberals that call themselves "journalists" turn on Bill and Hillary Clinton. A sub for Chris Matthews, a jester for CNBC (John Harwood, who I believe also writes for the NY Times) and a clown for NBC (Chuck Todd) were simply ripping the Clintons. I wonder what the Clintons are feeling now that they have been thrown aside by the liberals who have a new messiah to worship. Organizations like Moveon, Mediamatters, DailyKos, NY Times and even NBC, once ardent Clinton supporters, are now filled with anti-Clinton editorials, blogs, and comments. No longer the flavor of the day. Even most ironic is seeing Republican pundits treat the Clintons with a whole lot more respect than their fellow Dems. I can totally see why a lot of Hillary supporters are so adverse to the idea of supporting Obama. Just take a look at http://justsaynodeal.com .
 
Okay, I just watched another segment of Hardball, and I am wondering whether Obama pundits really believe the BS that comes out of their mouth (so they actually think they are speaking the truth), or are they just plain liars? When Obama supporters say that he hasn't played the race card, and that he hasn't made any negative attacks against McCain ... I don't know whether to laugh at them or cry for them. Obama supporters keep saying that he's a new kind of politician who decided to run a "positive" campaign and that's why he hasn't "attacked" McCain. Right, sure, calling McCain a racist is "positive" eh? Maybe they should ask President Clinton if he thinks being called a racist is positive.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama afraid of "change" - offshore drilling

 
Now that Obama realizes that American people REALLY favor offshore drilling, he is supporting offshore drilling as part of a comprehensive energy policy. But he says he will never let drilling be the end all be all solution. Gee Obama, have you not been listening to McCain and other Republicans whom have said that they want drilling to be part of the solution, which also includes alternative energy sources? So Obama is "changing" his position now, and that's great, because I think the American people will benefit from his change in position.
 
Irony is that Obama is now proclaiming that this "wasn't really a new position."
 
EHH???
 
After harping at McCain for weeks about how McCain flip-flopped on offshore drilling for political expediency, and how offshore drilling is a gimmick (just like gas tax holiday), and how offshore drilling will not help lower gas prices "yesterday, today, or tomorrow," Obama has the audacity to say that supporting offshore drilling is NOT a new position of his??? Obama clearly has some sort of mental issue where he just cannot allow himself to say that he changed his position on any issue -- gun control, Rev. Wright, gay marriage, public financing, war in Iraq, and now offshore drilling. While Obama uses the word "change" as his campaign standard, clearly, Obama fears the word change, whether the change is brought about by a belief that he is doing the right thing, or because of political expediency.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama aide ADMITS race was what Obama meant

Remember when Obama first said back in June that Republicans would try to scare voters by mentioning that he is black? I gave him a pass for that, because I thought that he was pre-emptively striking any attempts by his opponents to inject race into the presidential campaign. But he has now used slight variations of this same talking point at least three more times during his campaign yesterday with the slight variations. Instead of saying the word black, Obama is now saying that Republicans will try to scare people by saying that he doesn't look like the presidents in the dollar bills.
 
After getting called out by the McCain campaign for playing the race card when no one in the McCain campaign has told voters not to vote for Obama because he is black, Obama's campaign manager David Axelrod said the following during NBC's "Today" show:
 
"Nobody reported it as a racial comment. … The only time this became an issue was when (McCain campaign manager) Rick Davis and their campaign decided to kick it up and make it a racial issue."
 
I suppose that all the people who heard those statements by Obama, and who immediately felt that he was playing the race card, are "nobody" in the eyes of Mr. Axelrod.
 
Another Obama campaign aide Robert Gibbs said that:
 
"He (Obama) was referring to the fact that he didn't come into the race with the history of others. It is not about race."
 
Then in further response to the controversy, the same Mr. Axelrod, who first accused McCain of fabricating the race controversy, says in "Good Morning America" that:
 
"(Obama is) not from central casting when it comes to candidates for president of the United States. He's new to Washington. Yes, he's African-American."
 
Now, if that is not an admission then what? Unfortunately, as mainstream media goes, the host of Good Morning America did not follow up on Mr. Axelrod's own statement that Obama was referring to race, and just moved on to commenting how Republicans are trying to "get attention." Be that as it may, Obama played the race card in June when he explicitly said the word "black." And the usage was in the exact same context as the "does not look like the presidents in dollar bills" usage that he said three separate times yesterday. Now McCain probably knows how President Clinton felt when the Obama campaign used the race card against him.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain blunders ... running horrible campaign in my opinion

"Pretty good timetable" ...
 
Surge was about "counter-insurgency tactics"  and not about "more troops."
 
John, what in the world are you talking about? Rest assured that in the next few months, we are going to be hearing these words over and over and over again -- especially the "pretty good timetable" comment by McCain in reference to Obama's 16 month withdrawal timetable. And it will not matter what McCain's explanations are. It will be what the American people perceive what those comments were meant to say.
 
Obama has made so many blunders of his own, and yet, in my opinion, the McCain campaign has failed to capitalize and expose those blunders to the American people. As noted in my blog before, Obama's proclamation of being "correct" about a 16 month withdrawal timetable is only "correct" because of the stability in Iraq brought upon by the surge in American troops. In other words, Obama's self-validation is totally baseless. Recall that Obama's original expressed intent to withdraw the troops was because he thought we should not be in Iraq at all, and that the war was lost. The timetable was certainly NOT advocated because the situation in Iraq is good enough for the U.S. to withdraw its troops. Why hasn't McCain come out and explicitly pointed that out? Instead, not only does Obama have Maliki on the record talking favorably about the 16 month timetable, but Obama also has McCain saying that it is a "pretty good timetable." In the same statement, McCain also said that conditions on the ground should still control the rate of troop withdrawal, but those words are not enough to combat the implication that McCain endorsed Obama's 16 month timetable. McCain ought to know better than that. McCain could have said that it's a "pretty good timetable, but it's only a pretty good timetable THANKS TO THE SURGE!"
 
Similarly, McCain has been trying to hammer Obama on opposing the surge of troops. McCain's point has been that the increase of American troops brought about stability. Now McCain mentions that the surge was about "counter-insurgency strategy" and not about "more troops." What in the world??
 
The McCain campaign really needs to step it up. And McCain really needs to think before saying stuff. Obama can afford to make bone headed remarks, because the mainstream media and his "likeability" allow him some wiggle room. McCain has no wiggle room. He needs to run the perfect campaign. So far, McCain's campaign is far from perfect.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What can McCain do to defeat the Obama PR machine??

I just don't get why the McCain campaign isn't exploiting this Texas sized hole in the reasoning of Obama's self proclaimed "right judgment" regarding troop withdrawal in Iraq. The Obama campaign and his surrogates are touting over and over again how Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki and the Iraqi government want a timetable for American troop withdrawal, and how Maliki agrees with Obama's timetable. Hence, according to Obama's campaign, he has been right all along and "now" is the time to pull our troops out.
 
I am a fair guy, and I will say that if the Maliki-lead government of Iraq wants us to leave, we should leave. But does anyone in his or her right mind believe that Maliki would be saying this except for the fact that he believes that Iraq is stable enough for Iraqi troops to completely take over the security of Iraq? And what has brought about stability in Iraq? Some liberal extremists and Obama himself continue to deny that the surge was the key factor that lead to stability in Iraq. Fine, let them dispute the success of the surge. However, reasonable minds cannot dispute that had we followed Obama's Iraq policy of immediate withdrawal of American troops last year, the stability in Iraq today would not exist! Maliki certainly would not be talking in July 2008 about American troop withdrawal. So why is Obama being allowed to revel on having the "right judgment" to say that American troops can be withdrawn from Iraq in 16 months? The McCain campaign and his surrogates need to be out there pointing out the idiocy of Obama's patting himself on the back for having the "right judgment" about troop withdrawal timeline.
 
The McCain campaign also needs to be doing a whole lot better exposing what Obama said in 2004 about being against troop withdraw and "artificial" deadline:
 
 
The McCain campaign did put a great montage together regarding all the contradictions made by Obama regarding Iraq (which does include parts of Obama's 2004 interview noted above), but the message is just not getting out to the people:
 
 
So if you were John McCain, what would you do to help Americans see past the Obama PR machine?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Questions on Iraq that I would love to ask Obama

Too bad the Military Times is not widely read by the mainstream American public. That publication actually had an interview with Obama on July 2, 2008 that is quite interesting:
 
 
Military Times: Can we talk about your Iraq policy for a moment? Particularly where you talk about withdrawing one or two brigades every month soon after you are elected as a process to get us down quickly. What will you do if your military commanders advise against that and they tell you you can’t do that? Like [Army Gen. David] Petraeus I think said before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — you were there — that this is going to put everything at risk, my God you can’t do that.

OBAMA: Look, I’ve said this repeatedly from the start, and so I welcome the opportunity to correct the record. This whole notion that I would initiate a precipitous withdrawal just isn’t borne out by anything that I’ve said. What I have repeatedly said from the start, when I introduced my first piece of legislation on this issue in January of 2007 is that we should be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in ....
 
Compare to what Obama said in September of 2007:
 
 
"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was ... The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now."
 
And then compare to what Obama also said on his interview with the Military Times:
 
Military Times: If the withdrawal doesn’t begin as soon as you take office, when would you like it to begin? What kind of strategy would you set in terms of timing?

OBAMA: It’s very hard to anticipate what it’s going to be like six months from now. We saw how rapidly things have changed over the last six months, because of not only the extraordinary work of our armed forces, but also the shift in attitudes of tribal leaders in places like Anbar, the Mahdi army’s decision to — for now at least — to stand down the more aggressive posture that the Maliki government took in going into places like Basra. So if current trends continue and we are at a position where we continue to see reductions in violence and stabilization and continue to see some improvements on the part of the Iraqi army and Iraqi police, then my hope would be that we could draw down in a deliberate fashion in consultation with the Iraqi government at a pace that is determined in consultation with General Petraeus and the other commanders on the ground. It strikes me that that is something we could begin relatively soon after inauguration. If, on the other hand, you’ve got a deteriorating situation for some reason, then that’s going to have to be taken into account.

Here are the questions that I would love for someone to ask Obama.
 
(1) Senator Obama, is it your belief that some of the factors that need to be considered about the troop withdrawal are the reduction of violence and the stability of Iraq?
 
(2) If these factors are important, then why did you call for the immediate commencement of the withdrawal of our troops back in September 2007 when the level of violence was much higher and stability in Iraq was non-existent? Was the stability of Iraq, and the violence in Iraq not factors to consider back in September 2007?
 
(3) You are on the record stating that the war in Iraq is not central to America's security in its fight against terrorism. Then why are factors such as reduction of violence and stability in Iraq even worthy of consideration today? Why not just withdraw all our troops immediately and leave Iraq to its own fate as you proposed in September of 2007?
 
(4) It is your position today that General Petraeus' assessment of the situation in Iraq is an important factor regarding the rate of troop withdrawal. But when you called for the immediate commencement of troop withdrawal in September 2007, you had not had any meetings with General Petraeus regarding the subject matter. In fact, when you articulated your withdrawal schedule last week, you still had not discussed these matters with General Petraeus. Was General Petraeus' assessment of the Iraq situation not relevant to you back in September 2007?
 
(5) If it is hard to anticipate what is going to happen in the next six months, how can you articulate, justify, and implement an artificial schedule for the troop withdrawal?
 
(6) If the stability of Iraq is important to America and a factor to consider, then other than an artificial deadline/schedule for withdrawal that you propose, how is your Iraq policy different than John McCain's? And if the stability of Iraq is important, will you still withdraw all our troops by the deadline that you have set even if stability does not exist in Iraq?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »