« Czech President offers to debate Gore on global warming |
Blog Home Page
| The liberal vortex (updated) »
May 28, 2008
Obama Rejects McCain's Joint Iraq Trip Suggestion
Rick Moran
Is it that he doesn't want to know what's really going on? Or does Barack Obama feel no good purpose could be served by a joint visit to Iraq with John McCain?
Allah at Hot Air thinks McCain's offer was a ploy of some kind and that Obama only shows himself something of a coward by not at least talking about the idea:
If they're worried about the military giving them a dog-and-pony show, the answer isn't to decline the trip but to counterpropose a more comprehensive trip than even McCain's suggesting and turn it into a real fact-finding mission. Don't spend two hours looking at charts with Petraeus. Take four or five days; go to Basra and Mosul. If they simply can't suspend campaigning for that long, send a joint team of advisors from both sides. He won't do it because he's afraid of what he might hear, which goes back to a point I've been making ever since the Jamil Hussein saga: The left would have you believe Iraq hawks can't admit that any aspect of the war might be going badly, but the opposite has always been more nearly true. For purposes of the Narrative, it's doves who can't admit that any aspect of the war might be going better, as if to acknowledge that the surge has helped to improve security or that the Iraqi army is performing better than expected lately or that plenty of Shiites are tired of Sadr's crap would be to validate neoconservatism or somehow tacitly rubber-stamp an invasion of Iran. So how about it, Barry? Break the mold. I'm sure there'll be plenty of grim news in the briefings too to help take the sting out of the reports of progress. It remains to be seen whether the left and the press can keep up this denial of progress - painfully slow and uncertain though it is - until the election. This may especially be true if General Petreaus gets his way and is able to slash troop strength significantly in September as he currently believes.
But even if the Democrats are forced to acknowledge the progress being made in Iraq, it is unlikely to have much impact on Republican fortunes at the polls. The GOP is now in the horrible position of not getting credit for progress made but being given the blame for anything that goes wrong. If that sounds terribly unfair you are correct. But with the economy replacing Iraq as the #1 issue important to voters, it just doesn't track that any really good news from the battlefield will help McCain and the GOP that much.
|
|
|
Comments
Dear American Voters,
Hon. Senator McCain and Obama besides each having many attributes and characteristics. The critical differences in my professional, political, and personal opinion are as under:
1. Presidential "Temperament and Integrity".
2. Little Washington "insider Versus outsider" connectedness.
3. Vision and mission for our future rather than past.
In my professional opinion one senator has it and the other does not. We need one for our Greatgrand Nation to address our all these challenges with a fresh, clean and new slate.
God Bless America. its diverse people, and our Greatgrand Nation.
Yours truly,
COL. [retd] A.M.Khajawall
Forensic psychiatrist, Las Vegas NV
Posted by: COl. [retd] A.M.Khajawall | May 28, 2008 10:52 AM
AMKhajawall: claiming military rank or service to which one is not entitled is a crime. And, posting the same drivel on different site and comments sections shows you not only to be a typically weird supporter of the socialist hussein; but a typical leftard troll, a buffoon and an unimaginative idiot.
Posted by: Mamba1-0 | May 28, 2008 11:30 AM
Thank you, Col K for shortening your emails. With time, they'll disappear completely.
Let's debunk each of your points in order.
Obama does not have the integrity nor temperment to be president. Yes, his handlers have taught him well -- how to stand with his held tilted down to evoke the image of JFK or tilted up to evoke the image of FDR. Regardless, it's all posing. Once Obama opens his mouth and begins to speak without a speech on the teleprompter, he makes more gaffes than Dan Quayle. So McCain wins point one by default.
This year, liberals insist that change must come from outside of Washington, but this mantra is not a change at all. In 2000, Bush II was the change candidate from outside Washingtown. How has that worked out for the liberals? In 1992, Clinton was the change candidate from outside Washington. If that was so great, why not put Hillary back in the big house? In 1980, Regean was a definite change agent. Again, how'd that work out for the liberals? And in 1976, a peanut farmer brought us change from Georgia. It seems as if the liberals hope we've all forgotten those halcyon days of high interest rates, long gas lines, an arrogant and aggressive Iran. Looking back on the past forty years, it seems that agents of change only change things for the worse. Again, McCain wins.
As for the future vs the past, the liberals hope to tie McCain with Bush, suggesting that he's the candidate of the past. In reality, an Obama administration would amount to Carter II. Now if that doesn't make the golden boy an agent of the past, what does? Again, McCain wins.
And so, Col K, I'm glad that a clear thinker like yourself will, after heeding your own three guidelines, be joining the reasonable and support the Senator from Arizona.
Posted by: Zen Man | May 28, 2008 12:03 PM
Wait, let me review this so I'm sure I'm getting this right. The great unifier, BHO, won't go to Iraq with McCain, but will meet, without any preconditions, the leader of the country that is supplying weapons and personnel that are killing American soldiers. This was an opportunity for BHO to show the people that he is a man of his word, that he is willing to reach across the aisle and bring the country together. But just in case you haven't figured it out yet, the man's word has no meaning other then what is immediately needed to fix a problem that he and his big mouth caused.
Posted by: Goat Locker Gus | May 28, 2008 12:09 PM
Episode Two! Return of the Khajawal!!
Hey Khaji. Entertaining to see you back again. Y'know, fraudulently claiming rank and/or military service is felony, but representing yourself as a physician may also prove a greatgood legal difficulty. But I want to know about your greatgood family name since you've used two different spellings. Are you a K_wal or a K_wall? It is really greatgood humor to watch a man misspell his own name.
Thanks for the greatgood comic relief.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 01:01 PM
Maybe our esteemed 'Doctor' is a Col from the Canadian Army....Oh, maybe the French!
Posted by: Swami | May 28, 2008 01:52 PM
I suspect that the "Col" is an honorary title given by either the CPUSA or possibly AQI. Given the Arabic sounding name and the poor English grammar, I'm tending towards the latter interpretation. As far as the forensic psychologist thing goes, all I have to say is, "physician heal thyself".
Posted by: EOD Man | May 28, 2008 04:39 PM
Col. K.
You want a fresh, clean slate? You can start by supporting H.R. 25.
Posted by: Chris G | May 29, 2008 04:04 AM