What Obama Should Say On Iraq

(and the first 4 lines were a quotation of a previous post)

What Obama should say to Zakaria: Welcome to the cabinet, Mr. Secretary of State.

Whay Zakaria should say on Iraq:

That he was one of its smart-aleck supporters of the invasion when it was being canvassed. It was fashionable then, and Zakaria is nothing if not the man who tries to jump on the bandwagin.

That Zakaria is desperate to be Secretary of State or NSC Adviser to the Obamination.

I was very impressed by this article, and posted a review on my blog which can be seen through the link below:

http://www.strangelegacy.com/2008/06/26/an-intelligent-position-on-iraq-finally/

As someone who is tired of the absolute, black v. white arguments made by both the right and the left on this difficult and important issue, it's refreshing to read this type of thoughtful analysis. If we are to transcend this challenge (and the many others which face our nation) it will require this type of bold, yet intelligent and rational conversation.

After reading several of his articles, I have to say the Mr. Zakaria is quickly becoming one of my most respected pundits.

I suppose Mr. Zakaria, we should still be fighting the Viet Nam War.

I'm not sure that Obama's "base", of which I am one, would be terribly upset about looking at troop withdrawal on a practical level. Obama's "base" tends to be heavily college educated and fairly savvy about politics. Many of us understand that..well..Baghdad will not be re-built in a day. It's a war, admittedly a stupid, evil war, but we're not the only side playing ball over there. All of those shi'a and sunni, and shi'ite militias etc aren't going to step back and take a break while we pull out of Iraq. I keep hearing Republicans who think that all Obama supporters are completely naive about the middle east.

We have different ideas about how we'd LIKE to see the Middle East handled. And given the way this war has been handled...we think we're right. We're anything but pie eyed idealists.

Bravo. I think Fareed nailed it here. The one bit of policy "give" here would be to slow down the troop withdrawal under certain circumstances, which would anger some in the base. But I think it's a far preferable plan to most people vs. a basically open-ended commitment that has required too many troops, too much cost and still produces casualties.

If anyone had one trillion dollars, and would spend on million dollars a day, the trillion dollars would last one million days. If you divide one million by 365 days, you would get 2,739.726 years. For the sake of simplicity lets round the number to 2,740 years.This means that if you had a trillion dollars 740 years before Christ, spending one million a day, you would stll be a multimillioraire today, and this does not take into account the interests.
It is estimated that the Bush administration has spent at least one trillion dollars in the war in Iraq. The money spent is what taxpayers pay the government to provide services--like schooling, healthcare, and protection of the environmnet for the American people. Instead, this administration,-- the worst in the entire history of the United States --has squandered the money by giving it to the top one percent of the population that does not need it, and in a useless war based on a lie, that has rresulted in the sacrifice of thousands of American soldiers and hundred of thousands of other people who have died for a lie
Had this money not been wasted, it would have been enough to provide schooling, healthcare, housing and other services for every man, woman and child in America, for one hundred years.
The question is, why does a government such as the present one in the White House, would rather squander the money instead of providing services to the American People, and preventing the sacrifice of thousands of soldiers and other people,not to mention mainming and suffering? Anyone with a few hundred cells of common sense, would see the logic behind this. However, lobbiysts, special interests and Wall Street speculators, would rather spend the money in a mindless war for the sake of Huge profits generated by war profiteering. If we add to this the oil speculation that continues to ruined an already crippled economy, by making the consumer pay through the nose for gasonline and energy, then we are talking about. not only the most corrupt and deceitful government in history, but the most dispicable, callous, and immoral, as well.
Come November, the American voter must,--for the sake of the survival of what is left of its Democracy and begin rebuilding it anew--vote these gang of unscrupoulous politicians out of the White House. And remember, McCain is not the solution, he is part of the problem.

Its sad day for America if Americans still votes for the Candidates taht persists of carry on meanless War in IRAQ,even at the expense of own people miseries,This makes me wonder, are these are the same people trying hard to make America going burst and bankrupt ,if this so,its very sad day in America History, that's what Bin Laden supporters devious hope in John MCain as President ,which someone is very inconsistent in his political mindset and limited knowledge of economy to guide Americans in larger Pitfall.They team up with uneducated Americans and unconscience of prejudice WhiteConservative Americans.

the security agreement between United states and the Iraq government will make legal end for the occupation and give lawfulness only for the American troops in Iraq to fight the terrorism and to help the union of Iraq - so this agreement will be ring of nick of the next president and create new international obligations for America and make a jab between the change we announce it and the real fact on the land

Gee, do ya think the main stream media wants Obama for the next president. Now they're even telling him what he should say to win. How does this qualify as journalism?

LOL another propaganda piece by Zakaria.

Here's an upstart, third rate, gutter, writer who along with many others like Judith Miller for example, have skewed public opinion away from what is morally and ethically upright to what is right for the 'special interests' that they are beholden to.

Now he's lecturing Obama on Iraq.

LOL.

I'm disappointed this article doesn't show up on 'most viewed' list. Perhaps it didn't get the online promotion it deserved; clearly Fareed and the print editors attached considerable importance to it -- he wrote a two-page column, rather than his more typical single page, and they gave him a two-page spread and a front cover kicker.

It's always presumptuous to write a 'what [whoever] should say' type of column, but this one rises to the challenge. The purview is wide but never loses focus. The prescriptions offered thread that narrow needle through which untested leadership must prove itself in quagmarish circumstances (quagmire + nightmare).

Personally, I would hammer harder on how much that $1 trillion could have bought us here at home, because the economy has run out of self-blowing bubbles after 25 years and the only thing that looks likely to lead us eventually out of stagflation is a cocktail of catalysts in infrastructure, education, energy, and health care. It's obvious, almost 3 decades after the Reagan paradigm shift, that 'free markets and lower taxes' (and irresponsibly easy money) cannot solve all problems. All paradigm shifts have a finite useful lifespan, and the country understands, deep in its soul, that the pendulum must now swing away once again, though clearly into uncharted territory and not simply back to 'your father's democratic policies'. Obama, I believe, understands this (and wouldn't have got the nomination if the country didn't, too), and I pray he keeps his eyes on that prize without veering off course because of the enormous challenges of Iraq. Fareed's article is much more than a speech he might give--it's an intelligent safety guide for a particularly hazardous portion of the daunting journey we're embarking on.