If Obama Wins

Team Infidel

Forum Spin Doctor
Army Times
July 14, 2008
Pg. 14
Candidate cites need to earn troops’ trust, touts his judgment over McCain’s, holds civilians accountable for missteps in Iraq
By Rick Maze
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama knows that to win the vote of current and former military members and their families, he has to prove himself.
“Precisely because I have not served in uniform, I am somebody who strongly believes I have to earn the trust of men and women in uniform,” Obama said in a July 2 interview with Military Times as he contrasted his lack of service with that of Republican presidential candidate John McCain, a Navy retiree and Vietnam veteran who has years of experience in Congress working on national security issues.
“I do not presume that from the day I am sworn in, every single service man or woman suddenly says, ‘This guy knows what he is doing,’” said Obama, a freshman U.S. senator from Illinois, in his most extensive interview to date on a wide range of military issues.
Earning trust, he said, means listening to advice from military people, including top uniformed leaders, combatant commanders and senior noncommissioned officers and petty officers. It also means standing up for the military on critical issues and keeping promises, Obama said.
The 46-year-old former community organizer and civil rights attorney will formally become the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee at the party’s August convention in Denver.
Obama said he hopes the military community will see him as “a guy looking out for us and not someone trying to score cheap political points.”
Military members and their families deserve better pay and benefits, he said, and although money might be hard to find for a generous increase, he supports increasing basic pay to keep up with inflation and private-sector salaries, and he believes housing allowances need to be increased so young service members and their families can afford adequate places to live.
He also wants to spend more to improve veterans’ health care and reduce the wait for a disability claim to be processed.
“I don’t know a higher priority than making sure that the men and women who are putting themselves in harm’s way, day in and day out, are getting decent pay and decent benefits — so that when they return home as veterans, they don’t have to wait six months to get benefits that they’ve earned, that they’re not winding up homeless on the streets, that they’re being screened for post-traumatic stress disorder, that if a spouse is widowed, the benefits are sufficiently generous,” he said. “These are just basic requirements of a grateful nation.”
Obama said he did not want to be more specific because he did not want to make promises he might not be able to keep. “I think we can do a much better job than we’re doing right now,” he said. But, he added, “I want to be honest: We are going to be in a tight budget situation. We’re not going to be able to do everything all at once.”
He also wants an end to stop-loss orders that extend active duty beyond separation or retirement dates, and he wants a deployment schedule that provides more stability and time at home for families.
One way to relieve this stress is to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps. Obama’s plans for a 65,000-person increase in the Army and a 27,000-person increase in the Marine Corps match plans already underway. He said he is not sure about personnel levels for the Navy and Air Force, but “I don’t anticipate a reduction” for those two services.
Troops in Iraq
Pulling U.S. combat forces out of Iraq would free up money for personnel programs and a host of other military needs, Obama said, citing the $10 billion to $12 billion monthly cost of military operations there. He did not mention that funding for Iraq has, so far, been emergency funding on top of the regular peacetime budget that would not automatically be diverted to other military programs.
Getting U.S. combat troops out of Iraq is a key Obama goal, and one where he said he is misunderstood. His campaign materials say Obama would begin withdrawing combat troops from Iraq, one or two brigades a month, as soon as he takes office. But he added in the interview that the start of the withdrawal also depends on the security conditions on the ground.
Obama said he wants to reduce combat troops, leaving forces to continue training Iraqi police and military officers, providing security for U.S. officials and facilities and for counterterrorism operations. Exactly when and how quickly this would happen depends on the situation in the field, he said, acknowledging that military commanders on the ground would play a key role in recommending what steps to take.
Obama said he would not order any “precipitous” withdrawal of combat forces. Instead, he said, his policy is that “we should be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless in getting in.”
“I have always said that as commander in chief, I would seek the advice and counsel of our generals,” Obama said. But, in the end, “it is the job of commander in chief to set the strategy.”
A strategic factor in the decision to keep forces in Iraq includes, for him, a question about the risk of not having enough combat-ready forces for other operations.
“If we have only one battle-ready brigade outside the Iraq rotation to respond to other risks, that’s not good strategic planning by the commander in chief,” he said. “If we have a situation in Afghanistan where we are seeing more and more violence in the eastern portion of Afghanistan, at a time when we’ve actually increased the forces down there and we’ve got some of the best battle-tested operations deployed there, and we’re still seeing increases in violence, what that tells me is that we’ve got real problems.”
Obama said he believes he would be a far better commander in chief than McCain.
“I believe that I have a better grasp of where we need to take the country, and how we should use the power of ... not just our military, but all of our power in order to achieve American security,” Obama said. “I think I have a better sense than he does of where we need to go in the future.
“As somebody who has worked on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on critical issues like nuclear proliferation . . . as somebody who has traveled widely and grew up traveling around the world, I think I have a clear sense of the nature of both the transnational threats and challenges but also the opportunities that are going to determine our safety and security for the foreseeable future. And that’s why I think I can be an effective commander in chief,” Obama said.
Accountability in leadership
During the interview, Obama discussed the issue of accountability for military leaders, including times when, he said, he believes the Bush administration has blamed senior officers for things that were not their fault. He contrasted his own personal standards of accountability that he said would apply if he becomes president.
“There are times during the course of this war where I felt that the military was blamed for bad planning on the civilian side, and that, I think, is unfortunate,” he said.
He acknowledged, however, that sometimes it is important to hold military leaders responsible for their actions.
Obama also spoke of rocking the boat. In what seems certain to be one of his more controversial proposals for the military, Obama said he wants to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
Equity and fairness are part of the reason for lifting the ban on acknowledged homosexuals serving in the military, Obama said, but there are practical reasons, too — like getting “all hands on deck” when the nation needs people in uniform. “If we can’t field enough Arab linguists, we shouldn’t be preventing an Arab linguist from serving his or her country because of what they do in private,” he said, referring to the 2006 discharge of about 60 linguists for violating the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on service by homosexuals.
“I want to make sure that we are doing it in a thoughtful and principled way. But I do believe that at a time when we are short-handed, that everybody who is willing to lay down their lives on behalf of the United States and can do so effectively, can perform critical functions, should have the opportunity to do so.”
Asked how he would deal with opposition from within the Pentagon, Obama smiled and said: “Well, I’m a pretty persuasive guy.” But he acknowledged that pushing such a legal change through Congress would be more challenging. “We have to distinguish whether there are functional barriers to doing this and are people prepared for the political heat.”
Another potential boat-rocking issue involves the use of private military companies to do work once performed by uniformed troops. Obama said he would seek to limit military-related work in combat zones that is turned over to private contractors.
“There is room for private contractors to work in the mess hall providing basic supplies and doing some logistical work that might have been done in-house in the past,” he said. “I am troubled by the use of private contractors when it comes to potential armed engagements. I think it puts our troops in harm’s way.”
Obama also said he is troubled by the long-term effect of such a policy. “Over time, you are, I believe, eroding the core of our military’s relationship to the nation and how accountability is structured,” he said. “I think you are privatizing something that is what essentially sets a nation-state apart, which is a monopoly on violence.”
Obama on defense
Sen. Barack Obama’s positions on some key issues:
Iraq pullout. Obama wants to remove forces from Iraq at one to two brigades a month. He has not set a timetable, saying much will depend on the situation on the ground. He has often been quoted as saying, “We should be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in.”
Afghanistan buildup. Two more brigades would be sent to Afghanistan to fight the growing threat from the Taliban.
End strength. Obama supports the drive to grow the Army by 65,000 soldiers and add 27,000 Marines to the Marine Corps. He has not staked out a position on the sizes of the Navy and Air Force. The Navy is drawing down. The Air Force was shrinking, but that was halted recently.
Stop-loss. He would seek to end the policy for reservists and active-duty troops.
Military families. Obama would create a Military Families Advisory Board to cut burdens on spouses and families.
Pay rates. He plans to bring basic pay levels in line with the private sector. The campaign has not released specifics.
“Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Obama would work to repeal the controversial law governing gays in the military. He said the law has deprived the armed services of troops with crucial skills.
Guard and reserves. Obama wants them to deploy one year out of every six years, and cap cumulative deployment time at 24 months.
Veterans. Troops coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan would have mental health screeners in every state. Veterans also would have up to five years to enroll to receive care from the Veterans Affairs Department, versus the two years now allowed.
Weapons programs. All major programs would be re-evaluated based on current and future needs. Trade-offs would be made between systems designed for the Cold War and other new aircraft, such as unmanned aerial vehicles and cargo and refueling aircraft. Although not going into specifics, Obama called for “unparalleled air power capabilities,” adding that “relying solely on old systems from a past century will not suffice.” Obama calls for modernizing current ships and investing in small, capable combatants. He supports the concept of the Littoral Combat Ship program.
Private contractors. Obama calls for greater accountability and oversight for private contractors, especially those who are working in a war zone, and would require the Defense Department to decide “where contracting makes sense and where it doesn’t.”
Our questions, his answers
This July 2 interview with Sen. Barack Obama has been edited for clarity and length. To view the full transcript, go to http:www.armytimes.com.
Q. What qualifies you to be commander in chief?
A. I think that the most important quality that a commander in chief needs at this juncture in history in particular is judgment, an ability to see what America’s challenges are, to be able to see around the corner and anticipate where threats may come from in the future and to exercise that judgment effectively in deploying not just our military, but our whole arsenal of American power: our diplomatic power, our economic power, our intellectual, scientific and cultural power.
And, as somebody who has worked on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on critical issues like nuclear proliferation and ... grew up traveling around the world, I think I have a clear sense of the nature of both the transnational threats and challenges, but also the opportunities that are going to determine our safety and security for the foreseeable future. And that’s why I think I can be an effective commander in chief.
Q. What makes you better than John McCain?
A. John McCain has extraordinary service to our country, so I would never try to compare what he has done as a military officer, as well as his lengthy service to our country. I believe that I have a better grasp of where we need to take the country and how we should use the power of, again, not just our military, but all of our power in order to achieve American security. ...
I think I can exercise better judgment and anticipate what future opportunities are going to be.
Q. Provide an example, if you could, of where you can exercise better judgment.
A. I would argue in thinking about the war in Iraq from the start. I continue to believe that our decision to go into Iraq was a strategic mistake. It wasn’t just a problem of execution, but it was a problem of conception. John McCain may have been a critic of particular tactics of the Iraq war, but he believed that it was the right thing to do.
I believed that we needed to keep our focus in Afghanistan to hunt down al-Qaida operatives, to consolidate the gains that had been made by the outstanding military efforts in Afghanistan. I think we took our eye off the ball.
Q. 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?
A. 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 ... is that we should be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. That we should send a clear message to Iraqi leadership that we are not going to engage in a permanent occupation in Iraq and that we are not going to have permanent bases there. That we want to bring a gradual withdrawal of our combat forces, that we would maintain a counterterrorism force in the region that could continue to keep al-Qaida on the run.
That we would continue to have a protective force for our embassy, our civilian and humanitarian forces, and that we would continue to train Iraqis, both Army and police. And I have always said that as commander in chief, I will absolutely seek the advice and counsel of our generals and our commanders on the field, not just our generals, but our midlevel officers and those who are on the ground doing the fighting.
Q. 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?
A. 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 ... 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.
Q. It’s the first wartime transition in 40 years. The basic concern within the Pentagon is that things will be lost or continuity will be lost. Do you expect to keep any political appointees in place?
A. I try to avoid signaling what a Cabinet will look like. I can tell you this: I do think that [Defense] Secretary [Robert] Gates has brought a level of realism and professionalism and planning to the job that is worthy of praise. I think that the Pentagon is operating more effectively. I think he has improved greatly the relationships with the Joint Chiefs and the military generally.
Q. He just fired one of the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
A. Well, that’s OK. The truth is, part of improving relations is improving accountability. That’s something we should always expect from our military leadership and our civilian leadership, something that has been in short supply over the last seven years. So overall, I think Gates has done a good job.
But whether that means that he would continue in that position, or would even want to, I think that’s something that will be determined later.
Q. You’re on record supporting the growth of the Army and the Marine Corps. Where are you with the Navy and the Air Force?
A. What I want is a fully integrated armed forces that can deal with the full spectrum of threats that are out there. Our naval and air superiority has to be maintained.
Whether that means that we need more airmen and sailors or whether that means that our budget maintains the extraordinary technological superiority that we have in air and on the seas, that is something that I would determine based on consultation with the military itself.
Q. The size of our military has really been built very heavily on the National Guard, and very heavily on private contractors to provide everything from food service to aircraft service and gun-toting security. What are the proper rules for those different pieces and how should that change?
A. We have overburdened our National Guard and our reserves. They have performed wonderfully, and I think the quality of their service has been outstanding — oftentimes under some pretty adverse circumstances.
But we have to give them some regularity, some predictability in their service. ... We have to recognize that the National Guard has important uses here at home. ... I don’t like National Guard or reservists being used almost as active duty but not getting the benefits.
And so part of the reason I think increasing the size of the Army and the Marine Corps is so important is to make sure we’re providing some relief and returning the National Guard and the reserve corps back to their provisional role.
When it comes to private contractors, there is room for private contractors to work in the mess hall providing basic supplies and doing some logistical work that might have been done in-house in the past. I am troubled by the use of private contractors when it comes to potential armed engagements. I think it puts our troops in harm’s way.
Q. Are service members adequately paid?
A. I think we can do a much better job than we’re doing right now. ...
we are going to be in a tight budget situation. We’re not going to be able to do everything all at once, [but] what I can tell you is that I don’t know a higher priority than making sure that the men and women who are putting themselves in harm’s way, day in and day out, are getting decent pay and decent benefits so that when they return home as veterans, they don’t have to wait six months to get benefits that they’ve earned, that they’re not winding up homeless on the streets, that they’re being screened for post-traumatic stress disorder, that if a spouse is widowed, the benefits are sufficiently generous. These are just basic requirements of a grateful nation.
Q. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” — you want to repeal it. Why isn’t the policy working?
A. I think that at a time when we are pressed, we should have an attitude of “all hands on deck.” If we can’t field enough Arab linguists, we shouldn’t be preventing an Arab linguist from serving his or her country because of what they do in private.
Q. How do you get the military leadership to go along with that?
A. Well, I’m a pretty persuasive guy [smiles, laughter]. I think we have to distinguish whether there are functional barriers to doing this, and are people prepared for the political heat.
Q. Are you?
A. Let me put it this way: Precisely because I have not served in uniform, I am somebody who strongly believes that I have to earn the trust of the men and women in uniform. I don’t presume that from the day I’m sworn in that every single service man or woman suddenly says, “This guy knows what he’s doing.”
I think that I have to display those qualities in leadership in listening, standing up for our military on some of the critical issues we’ve talked about, on delivering on my promises, so that relationships and trust are built, and so that people who are serving in armed forces feel like, “You know what? This is a guy who’s looking out for us, and he’s not looking just to score some cheap political points.”
 
Yeah, you just have to love this interview/article. I find it revealing, although very disingenuous in places (since when to liberals care about earning “…the trust of men and women in uniform"?). :drill:

There are so many other things wrong with what he says that one hardly knows where to start. Things I have questions on:

1. What is the point of a 65,000-person increase in the Army and a 27,000-person increase in the Marine Corps while holding steady on the Navy and Air Force if you u are going to pull out of Iraq post haste?

2. How do you withdraw combat troops from Iraq at the rate of one or two brigades a month, as soon as he takes office and still maintain a viable security force on the ground and get all our stuff out (equipment, facilities, etc.)?

3. It would sure be nice if he had a clue about how to pay for all the nifty things he wants to do, but I don't think he understands how GWOT is funded. As noted in the article, and not discussed by Obama, emergency appropriations are not part of the budget, so there are no savings. I also think he seriously underestimates the need for recapitalizing the current force (the costs of recapitalizing the wheeled vehicle fleet alone are scary), let alone developing and buying new stuff.

4. I don’t understand Obama believes he would be a far better commander in chief than John McCain would. Have to tell you that working on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for far less than 2 years and growing up traveling around the world makes him “…think I can be an effective commander in chief… .”. How does that give you any sense of the “…nature of both the transnational threats and challenges but also the opportunities that are going to determine our safety and security for the foreseeable future… .”? How does this compare to devoting your entire adult life to service in the US Navy and in the US Senate.

5. I understand diplomatic power, economic power, intellectual power and even scientific power, but what the heck is “…cultural power… .”?

Note that this interview was primarily for the Army Times, which is a trade publication for the US Army and DoD. So unless you are a subscriber, have access to the Early Bird (this appeared there too), get it passed to your from someone who does or it gets picked up by other media outlets (could be as Army Times and the other Military Times papers are run by Gannet I think), you may never see this article. :roll:
Most unfortunate.
 
Human rights/civil rights types are usually best kept out of the office as South Korea has painfully learned over the past fifteen years.
 
A lot of Americans now agree with Obama on Iraq. It's a tramendous waste of money, time and infinitely worse, Iraqi and American lives! Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and the sole reason the US is in there is oil. It's a crystal clear fact in the eyes of the international community. Saying that America is in Iraq for bringing the damned land "freedom, democracy, and hence a better quality of life" is saying that all these years and thousands of lives have been WASTED because nothing, NOTHING of value has been achieved in Iraq that even vaguely resembles a better life for teh average Iraqi. Quite the oppesite, it's become worse, much worse.

Obama's Iraq policy has always made sense and when he becomes the next president, hopefully it'll still be in effect.
 
What they say to get elected and what they do once they are elected are two different things. I always look upon our local Politicians as one is bunch of thieves and the other is a bunch of of crooks and I am never sure which label to hang on which party
 
Smacks to me of Obama trying to win votes from the military.

And is that so awful? Soldiers vote dont they? Why is it that people seem to accuse Obama of doing the same things EVERY politician has done since the beginning of history?
 
And is that so awful? Soldiers vote dont they? Why is it that people seem to accuse Obama of doing the same things EVERY politician has done since the beginning of history?

Because he is a politician he will say anything to gain the votes. But because he is a politician he'll lie to these people and if elected do something else.

Refer to LeEnfields post.

Screw em all especially sunshine and lollypop do gooders
 
A lot of Americans now agree with Obama on Iraq. It's a tramendous waste of money, time and infinitely worse, Iraqi and American lives! Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and the sole reason the US is in there is oil. It's a crystal clear fact in the eyes of the international community. Saying that America is in Iraq for bringing the damned land "freedom, democracy, and hence a better quality of life" is saying that all these years and thousands of lives have been WASTED because nothing, NOTHING of value has been achieved in Iraq that even vaguely resembles a better life for teh average Iraqi. Quite the oppesite, it's become worse, much worse.

Obama's Iraq policy has always made sense and when he becomes the next president, hopefully it'll still be in effect.

I do not know where to begin with this little rant (and rant it is BTW) as you are SO Wrong in SO many places!

1. No one in the Bush Administration, US Armed Forces or Intelligence Community EVER claimed that Sadam Hussein or Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

2. If this is all about oil, then why are we buying it on the open market and not taking it directly?? Is that crystal clear enough for you?

3. If OIF is such a tremendous waste of money, time and lives, then why are the remnants of the old Baathist order, AQI and Iran trying so hard to stop us? If we succeed in planting an actual working democratic government in Iraq, we just unhinged the plans of every stupid despot in the region to include Al Qaeda and Osama and they all know it. And, just in case you failed to notice, the Coalition (not just the US) and the elected Government of Iraq, are winning this fight. We are not at the conclusion of this fight by any means, but the old Baathist order, AQI and Iran have lost both their credibility and their :cen: here.

I don't think we have wasted anything here and quite a lot has been achieved. Simply because the world media will not report on the majority of the positive things going on in Iraq, does not mean that they are happening. Wouldn't you say that free elections and the absence of a truly evil and murderous dictator is a good thing?

4. Obama has no Iraq policy and it has never made any sense. He has opposed every single successful measure implemented and can't figure out if we are staying or leaving or when that will happen. He is either willing or not willing (he has said both recently) to listen to the council of the soldiers and diplomats on the ground before constructing his policy. I am beginning to think he should change his logo to a pair of flip flops (sandals) since he can't make up his mind on anything.

5. What the international community thinks about most things does not concern people in the US very much, nor should it. Most of that community backed the UNSCR that authorized OIF and then did NOTHING to help. You see this over and over again: lots of talk, but no action and the when the US does something (usually after lots of crying from the international community) all anyone does is complain.

6. It's a long way to the November Elections and anything could happen.
 
Because he is a politician he will say anything to gain the votes. But because he is a politician he'll lie to these people and if elected do something else.

Refer to LeEnfields post.

Screw em all especially sunshine and lollypop do gooders

-----------------------------------------------------------------

But Again, why are we singling out Obama for this? Isn't McCain doing the exact same thing?
I don't disagree with what you and LeEnfield have said, but it seems disingeuous to accuse OBAMA and put him on a pedestal when every single politician in the history of the world has done precisely the same thing.
If we are just discussing kissing military buttocks in order to win votes I'd say McCain is far guiltier than Obama is, as he is the one who keeps insisting hes the better CnC and playing up his National Security credentials.
Remember also that McCain has been a politican much, much, longer than Obama has. So what whatever is said about counts double against McCain.

Gunner13

1. Your wrong. He did make that claim to the US Congress. Bush Letter to Congress dated 03/21/03
"The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001". [Bush’s Letter to Congress, 3/21/03].

I think thats a pretty clear and totally misleading statement...
2. Iraq has 25% of the entire worlds oil supply, its capacity is second to only Saudi Arabia. You cannot tell me with a straight face that it had nothing to do with oil, even Republicans Alan Greenspan and Henry Kissinger have said it was about oil. However It wasn't about controlling the oil under Iraq's ground, it was about controlling the entire world oil supply by attempting to force it out of OPECs hands. The oil companies did push to have the oil fields privatized but the continued violence and the unexpected high damage to the oil industry made this impossible. The oil companies did make a fortune in rebuilding the industry via Bush no-bid contracts. So yes it was about oil, but more the politics than the actual crude in Iraq itself...

3. First of all the 2003 coalition was a political farce, made up mostly of countries with little or no military significance such as New Genea, Fiji, the Cayman Islands, Afghanistan, and the like. There were only 5 countries willing to contribute troops and really only 2 that were willing to risk combat troops. The rest only sent small support teams of engineers and medics. Today, of those 5 countries only 2 are still there and I wouldnt count on the UK's commitment for too much longer.

We opened a Pandoras box in Iraq. Saddam was bad but he kept another evil (a religous civil war between Sunni and Shiite which could have ingulfed the entire middle East) in check whist he was in power. George Bush Sr and Bill Clinton knew this thats why they tolerated Saddam existence. Bush Jr stupidly and against his father, Jim Baker's, US Military, NATO allies, the UN, and all other sane advice, opened Pandora's box. The result was the mess we have now.

If you think there will be a true-blue democracy in Iraq, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. The same can be said about the so-called elections where only half the country didnt turn up to vote as the Sunni boycotted it. The best you can hope for is another dictator to replace the dictator we tossed out. And that is a BEST CASE scenario. You can talk about the achievements in Iraq all you like, but the fact remains there is exactly ZERO benefit to the American public. The bill is a $600 Billion and 4000 dead, 30,000 wounded, all of which the American taxpayer will have to cover.

4. Here the difference between McCain and Obama. McCain wants to CONTINUE the war in iraq indefinatly. He essentially wants to create permanent military bases within the country like we have in Saudi Arabia. Thats something just about every outside the Republican Party opposes. As long as there is a single US soldier in Iraq the war will go on. The Arabs simply do not like non-muslim armies on their land. They have resisted every invasion since the Roman Empire. Obama wants to the END the war and has offered a plan that gives the Iraqi Government 16 months to take over. Perhaps it makes no sense to you but the Obama Iraq plan has the blessing of the Iraq Government, the Europeans, and 1/2 the Americans population.

5. Oh really? Well the UN has been begging for help in Africa. How many US troops are in Darfur right now? In Sierra Leone? In Zimbabwe? Secondly the UN Security council never authorized the Iraq war. Bush used an old UN treaty from 1990 (Resolution 687) which allowed for military force if a member of the coalition came under attack (not the case) OR of a material breach that required a SECOND UN vote, (which Bush purposely ignored). The overwhelming view and that shared by the Secretary General of the UN was that the invasion of Iraq violated UN charter. So the reason the UN didnt help the US in Iraq was because the US never got UN authorization.

6. For the Presidency yes. But in all truthfullness, McCain isnt doing so well. Hes low on money, he has alienated his base, he is not liked by many within his own party, he has taken many unpopular positions, he looks old, used up (and according to young college Republicans), totally out of touch, and he and his advisors keep saying stupid or hateful things that make him look bad. (Hagee, another anti-Catholic preacher, Gramm). Can McCain still win? Yes. But unless Obama really screws up its not looking good for him. Congress on the other hand is very bleak for the GOP. At the very minimum they will lose two senate seats and a dozen house seats -best case scenario. They are in very serious trouble.

Since 2006 there were 3 special elections, the democrats won ALL of them including a seat in Mississippi that hadnt seen a Democrat since the 1960s. Not a good sign at all...
 
Last edited:
He is being singled out for this because his entire campaign is based on how he is a different choice and how he wants change you can believe in. So when he does the same things that the other politicians are doing it makes them think he is hypocrtitical and wonder where the change he is talking about is.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

But Again, why are we singling out Obama for this? Isn't McCain doing the exact same thing?

I don't disagree with what you and LeEnfield have said, but it seems disingeuous to accuse OBAMA and put him on a pedestal when every single politician in the history of the world has done precisely the same thing.

If we are just discussing kissing military buttocks in order to win votes I'd say McCain is far guiltier than Obama is, as he is the one who keeps insisting hes the better CnC and playing up his National Security credentials.

Remember also that McCain has been a politican much, much, longer than Obama has. So what whatever is said about counts double against McCain.
 
So what is he meant to do stay at home and not campaign because others are doing it?

I am pretty sure that when he talks of change he means in style of leadership and isn't eluding to a suicidal style of campaigning.
 
He is being singled out for this because his entire campaign is based on how he is a different choice and how he wants change you can believe in. So when he does the same things that the other politicians are doing it makes them think he is hypocrtitical and wonder where the change he is talking about is.

I fail to see the connection you are making. The question isn't if you trust the platforms, the question is the pandering to get votes.

Troops vote, Obama is running for office. Obama preaches his platform (which happens to be change) in hopes that the troops vote for him. As a voter either believe him and vote for him, or you don't. That simple.

Same deal for McCain.

I see Mccain much more often meeting with troops and military related orgnazations, so if anyones pandering it McCain.
 
You can't really trust any politician these days: Democrat or Republican.
I vote for a reset button!
 
Back
Top