BS: Popular Views on Obama

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 06:56 PM

Obama's frequent regrets may make us sorry


By Luke Boggs
For the Journal-Constitution

Published on: 07/10/08

Barack Obama just may be the most regretful figure in American politics, no small feat for a freshman senator.

On Wednesday, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said he regretted allowing his young daughters to participate in a family TV interview with "Access Hollywood."

It was an abrupt shift from decision to regret, even for Obama. The family sat down for the interview on July 4, and the first segment ran on July 8. By the next morning, Obama was saying he regretted including his daughters, even before the other two parts of the interview could air.

I'm not sure why. The interview was nothing but happy public relations, revealing that the Obamas enjoy riding bikes together and that the senator isn't a big dessert fan. (Pies are an exception.)

I suppose there may be a handful of humorless activists out there somewhere carping that Obama was "exploiting" his kids for political gain, but that would be an absurd complaint.

The guy is running for president of the United States, for heaven's sake. Family members have been a constant in American politics for a long time. And Obama having his daughters at his side in a puffy little holiday interview should have been no big deal to anyone.

So what jumped out at me was how quickly Obama regretted his decision. And that, in turn, made me wonder how often the senator has regretted other choices. Answer: pretty often. (Googling "Obama" and "regrets" yields more than a million hits.)

In November 2006, Obama said he regretted buying property adjacent to his Chicago home from Tony Rezko, a longtime supporter and big-time fund-raiser who has since been convicted of mail and wire fraud, aiding and abetting bribery and money laundering.

In February 2007, as his presidential campaign was beginning, Obama said he regretted saying that the lives of American soldiers who died fighting in Iraq had been "wasted."

In April 2008, Obama said he regretted his choice of words when he told some well-heeled donors in San Francisco that "bitter" folks in Middle America who have lost economic hope "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."

To be sure, these are choices worth regretting. Anyone can understand why Obama would regret his land deal with a convicted felon. And even liberal Democrats like Obama have been careful not to say American lives have been "wasted" in Iraq, even as they imply the same thing when they dismiss the war effort as corrupt, inept, unnecessary and worse.

Obama's most costly regret, however, may well prove to be his condescending shot at those decent, hardworking Americans he said were desperately clinging to God and guns and bigotry. It was a regret-worthy statement that said volumes about Obama's easy contempt for those in what elites call "flyover country."

Perhaps the American people are looking for a regretful guy this time around. After eight years of George W. Bush, whose dogged lack of regrets continues to exasperate his critics, perhaps this sort of intense self-scrutiny and navel-gazing will translate into electoral victory.

But I'm not so sure. After all, a lot of Americans understand that you don't get a bunch of easy do-overs in the Oval Office. You have to make tough calls, even when they may be politically costly.

I can't help wondering what Obama might regret in four years as president. What might he regret doing —- or not doing —- on the world stage? What might he regret saying —- or not saying —- to Putin or Kim Jong-il or Ahmadinejad?

Only time will tell. Depending on what happens in November, we may begin to find out next January. When we do, some voters may well have regrets of their own.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 06:57 PM

last was me...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 07:22 PM

Probably all the voters will have regrets in January, given our options in November.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 08:57 PM

On t'other hand, we have the Shrub, who never regrets anything. And McCain, who seems to forget what he said last year or last week or...
Take yer pick--regrets or forgets.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 10:32 PM

OR Obama, who keeps moving towards the right so fast that we will have Bush's third term under a Democratic president.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 10:32 PM

last was me...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 10:43 PM

Gee BB, I thought you didn't like an absurdly simplistic approach to the political scene. Guess I was wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 12:03 AM

Either that or you're wrong now. ;-) Which will it be, Ron?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 01:06 PM

A solid majority (56%) give the Obama campaign letter grades of A or B for the job he is doing to convince the American public to vote for him, while only 32% say the same of the McCain campaign. More than a third (35%) offer a grade of C to McCain's campaign so far, and nearly as many (30%) say the campaign has earned a D or F.

The grades voters give to the Obama campaign for the job it is doing convincing them to vote for him are the highest measured for any candidate over the past four election cycles. In June 2004, for example, just 39% gave Bush's efforts an A or B; even fewer gave high grades to Kerry's campaign (31%). In contrast, McCain's middling grades are slightly lower than those awarded to Bush in both 2000 and 2004. McCain's campaign does garner higher grades than the 1996 Dole campaign, which only 22% graded highly.

In this regard, the 2008 campaign has the largest disparity in high grades for the Democratic and Republican candidates over the past four election cycles (24 points). The gap between the grades for Obama and McCain is even larger than for Bill Clinton and Bob Dole in July 1996; at that time, 37% gave Clinton an A or B, while just 22% gave top grades to Dole.

(LA Times)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 01:11 PM

BB-
"Obama, who keeps moving towards the right so fast that we will have Bush's third term under a Democratic president."

Well, since you seem to approve of Bush's previous two terms, and McCain claims that he's not a continuation of W, I assume you're going to vote for Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 01:20 PM

1. 2nd attempt to post re Ron's being wrong:

"Why can't he have been wrong before AND wrong now as well?"

2. I will vote for the candidate that I feel will be best for the country- as I hope ALL voting in this election will do.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 01:33 PM

The very thought that Ron Davies could ever be wrong about anything at all is deeply disturbing to me, because I think of Ron as having something approaching and quite probably exceeding Papal infallibility, but his statement in his post of 10 Jul 08 - 10:43 PM ("Guess I was wrong.") makes it quite plain that he was either wrong then...or he's wrong now! You can't get around that, because it is borne out by cold, cruel, undeniable logic.

I've lost a lot of sleep over it, I can tell you. It seems that there is nothing one can depend on anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: John O'L
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 06:06 AM

Gough Whitlam, at his 92nd birthday party, commented that Australia now has a prime minister who can speak Mandarin, and it looks as though the US will soon have a president who can speak English.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 12:54 PM

Keep your fingers crossed on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 11:35 PM

< href=http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/13/zakaria.obama/index.html>Obaama discusses foreign policy issues like a man with a brain,-- a refreshing change from Cowboy Chimp W.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:40 PM

Voting is required to fullfill the delusion that Diebold, Everest, and USVS counts the actual votes.

please vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 03:04 PM

Washington Post:


Terms of (Dis)Engagement
Obama and McCain Need to Debate the Postwar U.S. Role Debate on Iraq Should Focus on What Happens After U.S. Troops Withdraw

By Jackson Diehl
Monday, July 14, 2008; Page A13

Barack Obama has been teetering between two imperatives on Iraq. He needs to adjust his withdrawal plan, drawn up more than 18 months ago, to the dramatic changes on the ground during the past year -- so that he will have the political mandate to pursue a sensible policy if he becomes commander in chief. But he also needs to keep his antiwar base happy and not blur what looks like a big contrast between his strategy and that of John McCain.

This Story
Terms of (Dis)Engagement
Mr. Obama on Iraq
The Stand That Obama Can't Fudge
This month he learned that his dilemma can't be easily finessed. When he tried hinting that he would "refine" his policy based on "more information" from "commanders on the ground," the blowback was so fierce he had to hold a second news conference the same day denying that he had altered his scheme to withdraw all U.S. combat forces within 16 months of taking office.

So what now? Obama's easy way out is to stick to the 16-month timetable through the fall campaign, while subtly altering the justification for it. He's already made a start: Before, he said the forced march out was needed to extract U.S. troops from a "sectarian civil war." Now, they will be coming out because withdrawal will be consistent with "the need to maintain stability," as he put it on July 3. It's at least possible -- or possible enough for a political campaign -- that regular combat units would no longer be needed for "stability" by the middle of 2010.

Still, there's a better way for Obama to solve his Iraq problem -- one that is honest about the state and stakes of the war but still sharply differentiates him from McCain. What's more, it's a solution dreamed up by Democrats who are among the candidate's advisers on defense. As outlined by Michelle Flournoy, Colin Kahl and Shawn Brimley of the Center for a New American Security, the strategy would focus on the biggest difference between the presidential candidates -- which is not about troop withdrawals but about the role the United States should play in Iraq five or 10 years from now.


Flournoy, a senior Pentagon official during the Clinton administration, points out that in the short term, the differences between Obama and McCain are mostly illusory. The next president will probably inherit an American force in Iraq of 130,000 to 140,000 troops -- and either one would probably reduce that number to about 100,000 in 2009. McCain will be obliged to remove at least some troops because of the strain on the military and the need to send reinforcements to Afghanistan. But Obama will find it hard to withdraw more than five brigades his first year even if he wants to. "There are limits to how quickly you can draw down without risking real chaos," Flournoy said.

That doesn't mean Obama's Iraq policy would be the same as McCain's in 2009. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and senior aides recently have begun talking about negotiating a withdrawal timetable ending in 2011 or 2012, well after Obama's end point but before McCain's 2013 goal for withdrawing "most" troops. McCain's likely response, Flournoy says, would be to "tell the Iraqis they have to convince us we can go." Obama would come from the other direction: "Convince us we should stay."

The argument of Flournoy's team is simply that Obama should be open to Iraqi arguments -- that an American withdrawal should not be dictated in Washington but carefully negotiated with the Iraqi government. A time extension could be used as leverage to obtain more progress, such as steps by Maliki toward a durable reconciliation with Sunni leaders. The Democratic experts call their approach "conditional engagement," as opposed to either the "unconditional engagement" of McCain or the "unconditional disengagement" that Obama has mostly espoused.

Allowing withdrawal to become a matter of negotiation would require a noticeable shift by Obama. But it also would open up the most vital debate about Iraq -- what the nature of U.S. engagement there should be after the war ends. As Flournoy sees it, McCain is likely to see Iraq as a base for advancing U.S. strategic interests in the region, starting with the containment of Iran. That's why he's been comparing Iraq to Germany and South Korea and saying U.S. troops could stay for 100 years. In contrast, even a modified Obama policy would rule out an American troop presence once Iraq were stabilized, on the theory that a long-term base would do more harm than good.

"Part of the fleshing out on the Democratic side is defining what's the long-term relationship with Iraq," says Flournoy. It's a task Obama would be wise to take on before the election -- and that might make his contrast with McCain look smart as well as sharp.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 05:34 PM

A ...representative for John McLaughlin told FOXNews.com Monday that the television talk show host wasnÕt using a racist expression Ñ ÒOreoÓ Ñ to describe Barack Obama during an episode that aired this past weekend, but was merely summing up what he believed to be the view of Rev. Jesse Jackson.

McLaughlin spokeswoman Becca Baker said the transcript shows that McLaughlin was not expressing his own point of view, but JacksonÕs view of Obama.

ÒItÕs clear from both text and context that John McLaughlin is speculating why Jesse Jackson said what he said about Barack Obama. ItÕs JacksonÕs view of Obama, not McLaughlinÕs,Ó she said.

The former Jesuit priest and Nixon administration official was asking his panel about the tense relationship between Obama and Jackson when he called Obama an ÒOreo.Ó

While also a delicious cookie, the term ÒOreoÓ is a derogatory term used against blacks that accuses an individual of being Òblack on the outside, white on the insideÓ

ÒDoes it frost Jackson, Jesse Jackson, that someone like Obama, who fits the stereotype blacks once labeled as an Oreo Ñ a black on the outside, a white on the inside Ñ that an Oreo should be the beneficiary of the long civil rights struggle which Jesse Jackson spent his lifetime fighting for,Ó McLaughlin asked, according to a transcript from The McLaughlin Group, the highly-rated show that launched the shouting head-fest that embodies cable news.

McLaughlin was discussing the recent Obama-Jackson clash in which Jackson was caught on an open microphone accusing the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee of being condescending toward black people during a FatherÕs day speech about responsibility. He also then said, ÒI want to cut his nuts off.Ó

Jackson apologized multiple times afterward and Obama said he accepted JacksonÕs contrition.

In addressing the panel, McLaughlin said Jackson may be angry about Obama potentially replacing Jackson as a civil rights speaker, a position Jackson has fought for in speeches and past election runs throughout his career.

A Gallup poll out Monday shows 29 percent of blacks named Obama as the leader they would choose to discuss racial issues, with Jackson at third with 4 percent. Al Sharpton was listed second with 6 percent....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 10:44 PM

Well, there's a lot to comment of here:


            There are some folks who think Jackson either knew the mic was hot, or turned it on, for the purpose of drawing a distinction between himself and Obama, hoping to boost Obama's campaign.




    "Jackson was caught on an open microphone accusing the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee of being condescending toward black people during a FatherÕs day speech..."

                  Obama talks down to everybody. Some of us feel it is his greatest political shortcoming.



       "He also then said, ÒI want to cut his nuts off.Ó"


            Hasn't Michelle already done that?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 11:28 PM

Rig:

You are, fundamentally, a decent person; why you persist in acting the part of an underhanded slime-ball is beyond me. It is really beneath you.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 08:20 AM

Just commenting on what's there. That's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 08:33 AM

Amos,

Recall your comments about Bush before you post criticsm of otther's posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 09:28 AM

Obama tells NAACP blacks must take responsibility
Monday, July 14, 2008 7:38:46 PM
By GLEN JOHNSON and DAN SEWELL

Democrat Barack Obama insisted Monday that blacks must show greater responsibility for their actions. In remarks prepared for delivery at the annual NAACP convention, the man who could become the first black president said Washington must provide greater education and economic assistance, but that blacks must demand more of themselves.

"If we're serious about reclaiming that dream, we have to do more in our own lives, our own families and our own communities," Obama said. "That starts with providing the guidance our children need, turning off the TV and putting away the video games; attending those parent-teacher conferences, helping our children with their homework and setting a good example."

He added: "I know some say I've been too tough on folks about this responsibility stuff. But I'm not going to stop talking about it. Because I believe that in the end, it doesn't matter how much money we invest in our communities, or how many 10-point plans we propose, or how many government programs we launch -- none of it will make any difference if we don't seize more responsibility in our own lives."

Obama, who grew up without his father, has spoken and written at length about issues of parental responsibility and fathers participating in their children's lives. Yet a similar speech by the Illinois senator on Father's Day prompted an awkward rebuke from the Rev. Jesse Jackson, a Democratic presidential contender in 1984 and 1988, a protege of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and a fellow Chicago political activist.

Jackson apologized last week after being caught saying on an open microphone that he wanted to castrate Obama for speaking down to blacks.

Republican candidate John McCain is scheduled to address the 99th meeting of the nation's largest civil rights organization on Wednesday.

Obama spokeswoman Linda Douglass denied the candidate was trying to boost support among white voters with his own "Sister Souljah" moment. Addressing a black audience in 1992, Democrat presidential candidate Bill Clinton accused the hip-hop artist of inciting violence against whites. Some black leaders, including Jackson, criticized Clinton, but it helped reinforce his image as a politician who refused to pander.

"It's not just a speech aimed at black audiences. It's aimed at all parents," Douglass said. Noting Obama also called for more corporate and government responsibility, she added: "This is a larger theme of responsibility."

While Jackson complained about such Obama speechmaking, other civil rights activists from the NAACP disagreed. They think Obama is doing a good job balancing his role as a black candidate with the need to speak to all races.

"He can't be totally focused on the black community," said Kelvin Shaw, of Shreveport, La., Shaw said he is most interested in what Obama plans on nationwide economic issues like rising oil prices, household costs and jobs. "We need to be talking about not one race, but what affects all people."

Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory, the city's first directly elected black mayor, disputed Jackson's argument that Obama is ignoring other important issues for blacks such as unemployment, mortgage foreclosures and the number of blacks in prison.

"I think he absolutely has," Mallory said. Besides his messages about responsibility, Mallory said, Obama has talked about jobs, health care, education, and other "areas where black people are disproportionately affected."

Civil rights veteran Julian Bond, the NACCP board chairman, drew loud applause in a speech Sunday night when he described Obama's candidacy as a milestone.

"The country seems proud, and I know all of us here are, that a candidate campaigning in cities where he could not have stayed in a hotel 40 years ago has won his party's nomination for the nation's highest office," Bond said.

Ronald Walters, a University of Maryland political scientist who was an aide on Jackson's presidential bids, said blacks understand Obama is trying to be elected president in a majority-white nation. But he said there has been frustration for those who want Obama to lay out a specific agenda for the black community beyond speeches from the pulpit about responsibility.

McCain plans to talk about education, including expanded merit-pay programs for teachers who improve their students' academic performance.

Walters, the political scientist, said the Arizona Republican's visit is a way to say he wants to represent all groups.

"It strikes a good tone," Walters said. "If (McCain) is elected president, he can say, 'I was there, I have an open door.'"

In his remarks, Obama also criticized his rival. "Sen. McCain is going to be coming here in a couple of days and talking about education, and I'm glad to hear it. But the fact is, what he's offering amounts to little more than the same tired rhetoric about vouchers."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 10:31 AM

Salon has a fine article on what Obama really told the NAACP, much of which was not covered in the press because their high-light issue was the Rev Jackson's pissing contest.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,GoGreens!
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 11:35 AM

Headlined on 7/7/08 at opednews.com:
McKinney Poised to Challenge Obama For Left-Wing and Black Voters

by Vivian Berryhill

As Senator Barack Obama continues pivoting away from those primary-election positions and promises that once galvanized his Democratic base, he may have a new worry looming on the horizon in the person of Cynthia McKinney. A former Georgia Congresswoman, McKinney is said to be a shoo-in as the Green Party\\\'s 2008 presidential nominee when their convention is held in Chicago, July 10-12.

Securing the Green Party\\\'s 2008 standard-bearer position would bestow on McKinney the historic title of \\\'first\\\' African American woman to be on the ballot as a viable candidate of a major party for President of the United States. That title alone will not only lessen the aura surrounding Barack Obama\\\'s position as the \\\'first\\\' African American male presidential nominee, but she may also siphon off just-enough left-wing, African American, and women voters, to sink both their chances for victory in the Fall.

Obama, in his quest to appeal to Reagan Republicans and Independents, is gravitating toward a more \\\'centrist\\\' position of late, which is causing serious ire among many of his followers, and those who supported and believed in his pre-General election message. And McKinney, being the shrewed politician she has always been, is set to capitalize on the Obama backlash. Recently issuing the following statement, McKinney\\\'s camp unashamedly challenges progressives/liberals who are disappointed in Obama:


\\\"There can be no effective reasoning with those African Americans who want only that a member of \\\'The Race\\\' occupy the Oval Office - no matter the character and politics of that Black individual. But self-described progressives of all races cannot excuse their own docility in the face of Obama\\\'s rightward lunge - especially when there exists one last opportunity to threaten the Democratic nominee-to-be with a backlash against his betrayals of progressive principles - one last chance to affect Obama\\\'s behavior before Election Day, November 4, and beyond. Cynthia McKinney.

It\\\'s time for people claiming to be progressives who supported Obama, to accept that they were bamboozled by a champion slickster. Actually, that\\\'s putting the best face on the situation, since most of Obama\\\'s progressive credentials were simply wished into existence by folks who were tired of even pretending to fight. Obama now dares to drop all pretense of progressivism, trusting that there will be no ramifications on the Left, especially among the otherwise most dependable progressive constituency, African Americans\\\".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 01:15 PM

All this rhetoric about Obama pivoting away from his base is, as far as I am concerned, a lot of bushwah smoke. The guy offered only one thing from the beginning--intelligent, comapassionate and principled attention. That's what folks loved about him, aftyer eight years of duckery, dodgery and unprincipled profiteering from the Feds.

I applaud McKinney's courageous step in coming forth, but I don't think it is going to do anything except possible give the most adamant Hillaryites a place to turn to.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 01:23 PM

I think it's more likely that the left wing voters who were abandoned by Obama will be more likely to go Green than the disenfranchised Hillary voters.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 01:31 PM

"In a speech delivered in advance of an overseas trip, Obama said fighting al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan would be his top priority. Beyond that, he called for securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states, achieving energy security and rebuilding international alliances."


So, if he has information about nuclear weapon programs in, say Iran, he would go to the UN, have a resolution requiring Iran to comply with it's obligations under NPT, and then do what? Find a group of countries that agreed with him and invade Iran??????



Bush's Third term, for sure...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 12:50 PM

Washington Post

The Iron Timetable
Whether the war in Iraq is being lost or won, Barack Obama's strategy remains unchanged.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008; Page A16

BARACK OBAMA yesterday accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain of rigidity on Iraq: "They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down." Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish consistency. Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After hinting earlier this month that he might "refine" his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq.

Mr. Obama's charge against the Republicans was not entirely fair, since Mr. Bush has overseen the withdrawal of five American brigades from Iraq this year, and Mr. McCain has suggested that he would bring most of the rest of the troops home by early 2013. Mr. Obama's timeline would end in the summer of 2010, a year or two before the earliest dates proposed recently by members of the Iraqi government. The real difference between the various plans is not the dates but the conditions: Both the Iraqis and Mr. McCain say the withdrawal would be linked to the ability of Iraqi forces to take over from U.S. troops, as they have begun to do. Mr. Obama's strategy allows no such linkage -- his logic is that a timetable unilaterally dictated from Washington is necessary to force Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.


At the time he first proposed his timetable, Mr. Obama argued -- wrongly, as it turned out -- that U.S. troops could not stop a sectarian civil war. He conceded that a withdrawal might be accompanied by a "spike" in violence. Now, he describes as "an achievable goal" that "we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future -- a government that prevents sectarian conflict and ensures that the al-Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge." How will that "true success" be achieved? By the same pullout that Mr. Obama proposed when chaos in Iraq appeared to him inevitable.

Mr. Obama reiterated yesterday that he would consult with U.S. commanders and the Iraqi government and "make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy." However, as Mr. McCain quickly pointed out, he delivered his speech before traveling to Iraq -- before his meetings with Gen. David H. Petraeus and the Iraqi leadership. American commanders will probably tell Mr. Obama that from a logistical standpoint, a 16-month withdrawal timetable will be difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill. Iraqis will say that a pullout that is not negotiated with the government and disregards the readiness of Iraqi troops will be a gift to al-Qaeda and other enemies. If Mr. Obama really intends to listen to such advisers, why would he lock in his position in advance?

"What's missing in our debate," Mr. Obama said yesterday, "is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq." Indeed: The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome -- that Iraq "distracts us from every threat we face" and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That's an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world's largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq's future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 01:03 PM

Somebody's really missing the point.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 01:23 PM

Yes, Obama IS missing the point. To base one's decisions on the facts required that one get the facts before making decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 02:20 PM

"To base one's decisions on the facts required that one get the facts before making decisions."

Don't be ridiculous! Where would George Bush be today if he had ever done that?

(grin)

The tough don't gather facts! The tough make decisions, baby, tough decisions based on unalterable dogma and unshakeable faith in their own rightness! Then they sift through all the available facts, rumours, and non-facts, and outright lies to find whatever they can there that might appear to support their decisions.

That is standard procedure in power politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 02:21 PM

As I said- Obama, Bush's third term...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 03:06 PM

You have to visit Iraq to know how to fight a war there.

The Republican hawks worship Churchill. Did he have to visit occupied Europe to fight Hitler?

Did Reagan have to visit the Soviet union to fight the cold war?

Did Bush learn the proper approach to Iraq when he went there and handed out turkey legs?

Did McCain learn from his photo op in the market place?

Obama has talked to Crocker and Petraus in this country and there are many other sources of information.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 04:41 PM

"If (McCain) is elected president, he can say, 'I was there, I have an open door.'" Trouble is, it seems to be a rapidly revolving door. And McCain can't seem to remember were he came in.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 09:54 AM

Until this week, when Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, offered a sensible and comprehensive blueprint for dealing with the mess that President Bush created by bungling the war of necessity against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, which could have made Americans safer, and starting a war of choice in Iraq, which made the world more insecure.

Mr. Obama's Republican rival, Senator John McCain, is no longer able to ignore the situation on the Afghan-Pakistan border, where Al Qaeda and the Taliban — the true threats to American security — are resurgent. But he has not matched Mr. Obama's seriousness on Iraq. Mr. McCain is still tied in knots, largely adopting Mr. Bush's blind defense of an unending conflict.

Mr. Obama has a better grasp of the big picture, despite Mr. McCain's claim to more foreign policy experience. For far too long, Mr. Bush's preoccupation with his misadventure in Iraq — which fostered a presence for Al Qaeda where there was none — has dangerously diverted precious manpower, resources and high-level attention from Afghanistan and Pakistan. As Mr. Obama correctly asserted in an Op-Ed article in The Times on Monday and in a speech on Tuesday, those countries, not Iraq, are the real frontline of the war against terrorism.

(NY Times Editorial)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 10:05 AM

"George W. Bush's contempt for the rules and institutions of international politics, his revival of preventive war, with all its unforeseeable consequences, his abrogation of the rule of law in his own country, and his ignorance of every issue related to environmental conservation have become, for me and for the vast majority of Germans, synonymous with a high-handed, ugly America. This state of affairs has provoked not only rage and horror, but also great sadness, for the United States has always been the symbol of freedom, democracy and law.

Although Barack Obama's style, when viewed from the comparatively disillusioned perspective of "old Europe," may sometimes look troublingly messianic, most people of this country nevertheless hope that he'll be able to bridge the gaps his predecessor will leave behind, and that he'll do so not just as a self-styled symbol of change, but also as an actual president who promises a different presidency.

..."

(Christoph Peters, German writer)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 01:29 PM

I do not regard the war in Afghanistan as having been "a war of necessity" at all, Amos. It was a war of choice, and the choice was inappropriate. The war in Afghanistan has not made Americans safer, it has further endangered them.

The nation of Afghanistan did not attack the USA on 911. It did not plan or sponsor or envision such an attack. The attack was planned secretly and sponsored by a small number of non-governmental operatives...conspirators...people who did not represent any sovereign nation or any government. 911 was a criminal act, not an act of war by one sovereign nation against another.

It should have been responded to as a criminal act, not used as justification for a war on the nation and government of Afghanistan.

Let's say a private group of people somewhere in the USA secretly planned to blow up a building in Japan...or Belgium...or Lybia...or wherever...for their own reasons. Let's say they succeeded and killed several thousand people. That would not be a reason for Japan or Belgium or Lybia to declare war on the whole USA! It would be a police matter, because international criminal acts are dealt with by the police, not by the armed forces. 911 was a police matter. A big one. It was no cause for a fullscale war against any other nation.

As such, it was an unprovoked and illegal war in my opinion, and it remains an illegal war to this day.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 02:11 PM

Thanks for your views, LH--when I quoted the der Spiegel writer above, I was not asserting they were my opinion. However it must be acknowledged that Afghanistan, in intentionally protecting bin Laden and his organization, was much more culpable of acts of war than Itraq ever was.

I concur that prosecuting bin Laden and his little organization as criminals would have been much better in some respects. It might have been a logistics nightmare, given the insularity of local police forces across the world, but it would have been much more palatable and probably more effective in the long run.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 02:46 PM

I don't think the Afghans were intentionally protecting Bin Laden, Amos, but we'd probably have to look into that some. What they did at the time as far as I recall was that they requested that the USA provide some evidence of Bin Laden's or his people's involvement in 911...and they said that if some evidence was provided then they would arrest Bin Laden and put him on trial.

That's a normal response for any country to give if some people on its soil are accused of committing a criminal act in a foreign country.

The American response to this completely normal Afghan request for evidence was absolute contempt. It was never even taken seriously, it seems. Some people in the American media were already saying on the very day of 911 that it could be linked to Osama Bin Laden. Where did they get that information? And why does the FBI to this very day list Osama Bin Laden as an international criminal for various terrorist acts (the attack on the US destroyer Cole, and bombings in Africa...) but they do NOT include the 911 attacks on that list! Apparently they don't think they have any substantial evidence to link Osama with 911. Mysterious, ain't it?

Sarcastic remarks were made stateside about "Sharia law" and how the Afghans would never give Bin Laden an honest trail...but the real agenda was crystal clear...the US government had already decided on a war in Afghanistan anyway, and was not even slightly interested in any legal procedures that the Afghans might initiate in regards to Bin Laden. It was not worth discussing as far as Bush was concerned. He wanted a war. 911 was the incident that enabled the public to accept such a war. The war wasn't really about Al Queda, Amos...it was about long range strategic concerns in Aghanistan and central Asia, it was about building pipelines, it was about oil shipping routes, stuff like that.

It was already in the planning stages well prior to 911, but the American public was told nothing about that.

This is a big game, Amos. It has nothing to do with really protecting the American public or any other public from anything, in my opinion. It has to do with strategic interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 03:14 PM

I think that the Taliban and Al Qaeda were in league with each other and that they were both very bad for the Afghani people.

They were the local and foreign franchises of the groups created with US and Saudi funds to fight the Soviets. All they know how to do is fight authority. It was the height of stupidity for the US to leave them to run the country when the Soviets left. America, and the West in general turned its back on the people of Afghanistan after the Soviets left, just as they turned their backs on the Russian and other ethnic groups in the former Soviet Union after it collapsed. All the Russians knew was autocracy. We did not help them advance. Now they are again ruled by the methods of the KGB.

We are paying for that now. Sooner or later the messes need to be cleaned up. the longer we wait. The more expensive the cleanup. Its now too late for Russia. The will probably have to wait for the oil to run out and for their system to collapse again before their citizens will have another chance a t self determination.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 03:15 PM

OSama bin Laden has been viewed on tape by millions overtly discussing the takedown of the two towers. I don't think there is any case to be made that he wa snot behind it. Afghanistan actually ducked the question first by denying he was in country. They were not forthcoming. There's no question the intell community had reason to believe he was behind it because they had warned the President about it just a month earlier.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 03:22 PM

Uh-huh...but I don't buy all that, Amos. Some of it, maybe...not all of it.

We could argue about 911 till we both went blue in the face as to who really was behind it, and who planned what...and we could also argue about the possibility of faked and doctored videos...but I've gotta get some other stuff done today too. ;-) Maybe another time.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 08:44 PM

Well, I don't much mind what you buy or not, but I am always open to facts, should you have some.

Do you think AL Qeda is not the organization behind the attacks of 9-11-01? Or do you think Osama bin Laden is not the main exec behind Al Qeda? Or what?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 09:49 PM

"Its now too late for Russia."


                Jack - Don't you think you're selling the Russian people short?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 10:14 PM

Russia will always restore itself, given time. They're a very strong nation, and they have weathered worse times than the present situation.


Amos, I'll PM you about what I think about those questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 01:39 AM

1200 years ago the Russians were ruled by the Vikings who named the country and called them slavs. The words "slav" and "slavic" come from the fact that they were slaves of the Vikings. Then came the Mongols. Then came the Tzars. Then the Communists. Then a few years of uneasy democracy and poverty for the masses. Now wealth, relative prosperity and a restoration of a measure of imperial pride under Putin. Putin is hugely popular he make the trains run on time and he feeds the hungry. Russians now say democracy is over rated.

I am not optimistic.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 01:57 AM

Democracy, as it is presently being practiced in the western world...IS overrated as a matter of fact, way overrated, because it's mostly a phony, money-dominated scam by corporate-controlled parties that betray the people who vote for them.

REAL democracy, however, would be a very good idea. For that I think one would need some very major reforms in things like campaign financing, for one. And it would help if the present political parties were dismantled entirely and replaced by something much more democratic than they will ever be. I wonder when we'll ever get to try it...real democracy?

Mother Russia is Mother Russia, Jack. She will not die...no more than America will die. No more than China will die. No more than France will die. There are some things you cannot kill.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 08:34 AM

Washington Post:

The Audacity of Vanity
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, July 18, 2008; Page A17

Barack Obama wants to speak at the Brandenburg Gate. He figures it would be a nice backdrop. The supporting cast -- a cheering audience and a few fainting frauleins -- would be a picturesque way to bolster his foreign policy credentials.

What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn. President Ronald Reagan earned the right to speak there because his relentless pressure had brought the Soviet empire to its knees and he was demanding its final "tear down this wall" liquidation. When President John F. Kennedy visited the Brandenburg Gate on the day of his "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech, he was representing a country that was prepared to go to the brink of nuclear war to defend West Berlin.

Who is Obama representing? And what exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop? What was his role in the fight against communism, the liberation of Eastern Europe, the creation of what George Bush the elder -- who presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall but modestly declined to go there for a victory lap -- called "a Europe whole and free"?

Does Obama not see the incongruity? It's as if a German pol took a campaign trip to America and demanded the Statue of Liberty as a venue for a campaign speech. (The Germans have now gently nudged Obama into looking at other venues.)


Americans are beginning to notice Obama's elevated opinion of himself. There's nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?

Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.

It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history -- "generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment" -- when, among other wonders, "the rise of the oceans began to slow." As Hudson Institute economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, "Moses made the waters recede, but he had help." Obama apparently works alone.

Obama may think he's King Canute, but the good king ordered the tides to halt precisely to refute sycophantic aides who suggested that he had such power. Obama has no such modesty.

After all, in the words of his own slogan, "we are the ones we've been waiting for," which, translating the royal "we," means: " I am the one we've been waiting for." Amazingly, he had a quasi-presidential seal with its own Latin inscription affixed to his lectern, until general ridicule -- it was pointed out that he was not yet president -- induced him to take it down.

He lectures us that instead of worrying about immigrants learning English, "you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish" -- a language Obama does not speak. He further admonishes us on how "embarrassing" it is that Europeans are multilingual but "we go over to Europe, and all we can say is 'merci beaucoup.' " Obama speaks no French.

His fluent English does, however, feature many such admonitions, instructions and improvements. His wife assures us that President Obama will be a stern taskmaster: "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism . . . that you come out of your isolation. . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is?

We are getting to know. Redeemer of our uninvolved, uninformed lives. Lord of the seas. And more. As he said on victory night, his rise marks the moment when "our planet began to heal." As I recall -- I'm no expert on this -- Jesus practiced his healing just on the sick. Obama operates on a larger canvas.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 10:03 AM

KRauthammer is asinine, and posting long examples of it is teejous.


A