What In The Hell Is Obama Thinking?
What Obama said in the debate last night is pretty amazing.
……suggesting during a Democratic debate that after withdrawing combat troops from Iraq, Obama, as commander in chief, would be willing to send U.S. troops back into Iraq “if al Qaeda is forming a base” there.
Hello Dumbass! McCain responded with this.
“The fact is, al Qaeda is in Iraq,” McCain said. “Al Qaeda is in Iraq today. If we left Iraq there’s no doubt that al Qaeda would then gain control in Iraq and pose a threat to the United States of America.
Obama’s comeback was to point out that Al Qaeda would not be in Iraq if we had not invaded. So freaking what! It isn’t about “what was”. This election is about dealing with “what is”.
That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard a candidate say. Regardless of why the terrorists are in Iraq, the fact is that they are there, and if you are President, you are going to have to deal with this fact. And he says that he will go back in there, after pulling them out? What the …?
Barry, assuming it isn’t racist to call him that, seems like a really nice guy, but the man is just not ready for prime time. The presidency is a job that needs to be occupied by a grownup.
This election is about dealing with “what is”.
That’s right. ‘Cause we KNOW who caused that humongous, multi-trillion-dollar fuckup in Iraq, and we voted accordingly in 2006.
.
It doesn’t matter JP. Regardless of who are what caused the situation, it is still a situation. Pointing out who caused it is kind of meaningless at this point.
Yea, the terrists are there… the guys that hide in the shadows only to emerge and set an IED for a passing US vehicle. And this is why we must focus the vast majority of the US military might and $333 million a day?? To kill these rag tag bombers cause if we don’t they’re gonna come to Redneck USA and kill us all?
Pointing out who caused it is kind of meaningless at this point.
I understand why you have to repeat this to yourself, regardless.
/
Obviuosly, Glen has bought the BS Bush is selling.
1) The Bush Administration has vastly overstated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq according to a report from the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS).
2) The Conservative CATO Inst reports:
The article goes on to say how al Qaeda in nearly universally hated by Shiites, Kurds, and most Sunnis.
This is one of the stupidist lines of bullshit ever fed by an Administration with a big shovel trying to save face for what the vast majority of Americans see as a total incompetent fuk-up.
Obama has mentioned many time about going after the real strong hold of al Qaeda in Afghanitan and Pakistan, now that it is reported today by the AP that the Afghan government has no control over 70% of the nation.
right Glen, who’s the dumbass and the BS consumer?
This is probably a good time to point out that “Al Qaeda In Iraq” and “Al Qaeda” aren’t actually the same thing, despite the similar names.
Anyway:
Pointing out who caused it is kind of meaningless at this point.
That’s what the people who caused this would like you to believe, yes.
We are in there, and our interests are tied up there, and all the caterwauling by leftist morons won’t change a thing, now.
We either stick to our course of action, or pull out. Consequences for either action must be weighed and measured.
In the end, our interests will require that we stay and finish the job we started. We continue to make progress, and eventually the hard decision to stay will pay off.
Or, pull out, and assume the position…of the Liberal leftists, which leaves us inherently weak.
And spending $333 million a day makes us strong? Or just look that way? I know… it’s all about saving face.
William, JP, and Tgirsch, think about what Obama is saying. He pretty much said that if it was necessary, he would send troops back in. He isn’t promising a withdrawal, never to return no matter what. Staying so that you wouldn’t have to return would make a whole hell of a lot more sense, would it not? ‘
And the reasoning he is giving for possibly going back is if Al Qaeda is there. It doesn’t make any sense. Is this what the rabid anti-war left really wants, the possibility of going back?
Staying so that you wouldn’t have to return would make a whole hell of a lot more sense, would it not?
Well, I’m not sure why you’re so convinced that the Iraqis can’t do a better job of this without U.S. troops being there. I mean, it’s pretty obvious that the mightiest military on Earth has not been able to accomplish this task in five years, so maybe a smart person would step back and ask, “Are we trying to kill gnats with a bazooka?”
.
Obama’s not ready for prime time.
The general election will prove that.
Get ready for 4 more years of Republican leadership.
Get ready for 4 more years of Republican leadership.
And the Easter Bunny!
.
He pretty much said that if it was necessary, he would send troops back in. He isn’t promising a withdrawal, never to return no matter what.
Well, duh! If a threat were to materialize (unlike March, 2003), who wouldn’t reserve the option to go back in? As it is, what are they gonna do? Fire IEDs across the Atlantic at us?
.
Go back in? For a few thousand rag tag bombers at the cost of $330 mil a day? Even if so, it’s not simply “going back in” it’s HOW you go back in….
Serr8d:
We either stick to our course of action, or pull out.
False dilemma, anyone? Those are the two most likely courses of action, but not the only two that are possible.
In the end, our interests will require that we stay and finish the job we started. We continue to make progress, and eventually the hard decision to stay will pay off.
Methinks you’ve failed to weigh and measure the consequences of that particular action. Even if real “success” is still possible — which I seriously doubt — you have to consider the long-term effects on our military, which are actually quite stunning (in a bad way). Our Iraq adventure has weakened our military in very real and very dangerous ways, and the repair process may take a generation or more. That process can’t begin as long as we’re bogged down in a war with no clear objective and no clear exit strategy.
Glen:
He pretty much said that if it was necessary, he would send troops back in.
I don’t think that’s actually what he said. He said he would do whatever was necessary. I expect that’s much more likely to involve air strikes than troop deployments, and I doubt it would mean another full-scale invasion. Basically he’s saying that he’ll withdraw, but not blindly or recklessly. Most reasonable people would consider that to be a good thing.
The rest of your comment is born of a misunderstanding (or, at best, a too-narrow interpretation) of what kind of action he would take if Iraq became a haven for Al Qaeda (the real Al Qaeda, by the way).
there is NO finishing… you white boys don’t get it . These sects have been fighting for a millenium, they will continue to fight There is no winning. Saddam is gone, we’ve won. Al Qaeda already has a haven, the one we should’ve closed down when we had the chance.