What Obama Should Say On Iraq

Hey, I love it when people USE CAPITAL LETTERs to make their point. The comments are like a 3 STOOGES show. How about we just go back to 1861 and divide the US boundaries, the idiots on the right can live in the South and have all the wars they want. At some point they will die off due to inbreeding and such, then we can put all the old folks back in Florida. Vote for McNumbnutz Version 2 NOW!

Why hasn't the American People ever been notified of the inconsistency of his relationship with his Mother, how he ditched because she was a Racist. He wanted to associate with the Blacks. In 2006, he went t Kenya and campaigned for his Cousin, Raila Odinga, a Muslim, trying to overthrow that Government. He enlisted DICK MORRIS to Manage Odingas Campaign.

Well there isn't much that Senator Obama can say to Iraq that hasn't been said already. The fact is
"MONEY TALKS" the United States has already invested hundreds - of - billions - of dollars into Iraq
Iraq might secretly be saying "MONEY WALKS" in Iraq OIL IS A MAN'S BEST FRIEND, the United states seem to have gotten themselves into slippery situation, to escape they might have to wipe the oil off their shoes.

intermedusa you missed al-Qaeda rising up and turning Afganistan in to chaos, Then Obama declaring Afganistan not worth fighting for either. Then with two huge defeats the USA pulls out of the middleast. Pakistan falls to the talban forces in its own country. Now 10s of millions flee to europe, America and India. Border tension rise with India, leading to war and a nuke exchange. Yes, Obama is one hell of a agent for change......Hell on earth......NObama

Many of the responders on this blog have a serious real disconnect with this article. The article is intended to tell Obama to take a new position on Iraq because the 2004 one won't work because Iraq and America are winning big and its so obvious that even Newsweek can't cover it up anymore. Heck, the WPost is running a multitude of articles on it.

The purpose of this editorial is to tell Obama how to rewrite history on Iraq to minimize the historical damage that democrats have done to themselves and yet some of you here didn???t catch on. That is kind of funny.

Folks, I work in Amman, I watch Al Jazeria every day (over CNN International) and never once have I heard anything as ignorant as the meat of this article and subsequent blog responses. Get out people. Read (something other than Newsweek and Time). Look around. Think. Go to a real college if its not too late. Or??? just sit there as pissed off as Iran is that Iraq is becoming the self-sufficient beacon of freedom here fully capable of killing Iranian insurgents on their own and that... sigh... big sigh... President George W. Bush was right. He never gave up on the Iraqis, Iranian students and others to bring freedom to this region, too bad most of you have and have done so as proudly and as arrogantly as you can. Sad.

Here, read this real editorial from the UK Telegraph about the same subject and start realizing what the rest of the world is starting to think about Bush and subsequently you.... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/22/do2201.xml

Sad. The responders on this blog have a real disconnect with this article. The article is intended to tell Obama to take a new position on Iraq because Iraq and America are winning big. The purpose of this editorial is to tell Obama how to rewrite history on Iraq to minimize the damage that democrats have dont to themselves and yet some of you here didn???t catch on. That is kind of funny. Folks, I work in Amman, I watch Al Jazeria every day (over CNN International) and never once have I heard anything as ignorant as the meat of this article and subsequent blog responses. Get out people. Read. Look around. Think. Go to a real college if its not too late. Or??? sit there just as pissed off as Iran is that Iraq is becoming the self-sufficient ass kicking beacon of freedom here that Bush promised. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/22/do2201.xml

If the US is forced out of Iraq the following disaster will ensue.

By
Larry Houle
www.godofreason.com
intermedusa@yahoo.com

1 The Iraqi government immediately collapses.

2. All Iraqis who supported the Government and US flee the country by the hundreds of thousands.

3 Iran immediately steps into the power vacuum supporting the seizure of Baghdad by their radical Shiite militia allies.

4 A radical Shiite Islamic government is imposed on Iraq.

5 A podium against the Sunnis begins with millions killed. The survivors are driven out of the country.

6 One million Hezbollah style fighters are enlisted into the radical Shiite Militias. (If Hezbollah can muster an army of fifty thousand fighters from a Lebanese population of 1.5 million Shiites - then in Iraq a Hezbollah style government would create an army of one million Shiite fanatics.)

7. This force in alliance with the Iranian army captures Riyadh within weeks and seizes the Gulf States.

8. They then march into Jordon creating a Shitte Crescent stretching from Iran to the Suez Canal and from the Mediterranean Sea to the Russian Cossacks.

9. With 80% of the world's oil, under Iran's control the price will soar to $10.00/20.00 per gallon.

10. Israel is attacked with rockets on all sides effectively shutting down the Israeli economy and destroying the Jewish state.

11. After obtaining nuclear weapons, Iran unleashes terrorist forces worldwide attacking Europe and the US.

12. These terrorists smuggle nuclear weapons into London, Paris, Washington, New York and kill millions.

This nightmare does not have to happen. But it will happen if we leave Iraq.



By,

I have said for some time that Fareed Zakaria would be the very best adviser the President could have - no matter who occupies the White House. Zakaria has an uncanny and intimate knowledge of foreign politics and economies. He is briliantly objective and is not in search of any political appointment, election or re-election. He studies and presents the facts, digests them and then he presents them to anyone, who would elect to listen to him. He now needs to write a "speech" for McCain !!

An excellent article. Zakaria should be Secretary of State in the Obama administration.

Obama doesn't need any lectures from this rancids hawk, who promoted the war long before it happened.

No, no, no. This is not what "Obama should say on Iraq". Nor should he echo Mr. Zakaria's refrain that "Iraq is fading in importance for the public and, to the extent that it matters as an electoral issue, most people agree with Obama's judgment that the war was not worth fighting." The conventional political wisdom is carping that it's the economy, not the war, that has become the public's main concern. Yet Zakaria's own words emphasize the fact that there is no dichotomy between focusing on the economy and on a quick exit from Iraq, that the state of the economy and the conduct of the war are in fact part of a seamless garment: "In the last five years, the United States has spent close to $1 trillion on the invasion and occupation of Iraq. That is enough money to rebuild every school, bridge and road in America, create universal health care and fund several Manhattan Projects in alternative energy." The Senator should also reject he idea that this money has already been flushed down the drain, so what's a few more months (or years) of bloodshed and diversion of funds sorely needed at home, so we can "get it right" in Iraq. Sen. Obama has built his young career on his opposition to the war in Iraq, and this is largely what has inspired people like myself -- and more importantly, perhaps millions of new young, Black and Latino voters -- to focus our support and votes and funds on propelling him toward the Democratic nomination. Should he abandon his anti-war credentials for the sort of milquetoast "pragmatism" suggested by Mr. Zakaria,, as did John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, I for one will not vote for him. The Republicans might be worried about Bob Barr; the Democrats just might have to worry again about Ralph Nader. Mr. Obama's position should be simple: "I have opposed this illegal and immoral war from the beginning, and once I've been sworn into office, the Iraqi government can expect that the U.S. will begin a series of troop withdrawals that will end our involvement by the end of 2009, as I promised throughout my campaign. Please adjust your political planning accordintly."

I think it should also be added Obama needs to visit Iraq and AFGHANISTAN before making any Iraq speeches.

I find all this democracy talk around Iran funny. If look at the government and their electoral system is no less fair than Iraq and much more fair than Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or a number of nations we've poured billions of dollars of aid into to prop up facist regimes.

Well said Zakaria. Obama has a strong argument on Iraq even with the obvious improvements. It really needs to be made clear that the actual surge policy would have accomplished nothing had we not started talking to enemy Sunni insurgents and holding a cease fire with enemy Sadr. It also needs to be noted that there is incredibly strong opposition in Iraq to the permanent bases which McCain/Bush are silently proposing. There are billion dollar base construction projects that have been going on for years which are virtually unknown. Obama needs to hit McCain hard on his comparing Iraq to Japan, Germany, or Korean. McCain needs a serious history lesson there, because the situations are completely different. Ironically he may need to look at Vietnam which is emerging as a growing Asian power as an example of how functional government can establish itself without American bases or government hand holding even after brutal warfare. With its huge oil profits and international assistance Iraq 'should' be much easier to establish than Vietnam could have been. Ultimately it will be the Iraqis who determine their future not McCain, Bush, or Obama, and be it they develop a closer relationship with Iran we here on the other side of the world are in no position to stop them.

The only thing I think Obama needs to add to this speech is an explanation that his opposition to the surge was not necessarily wrong. Based on the Bush Administration's lack of progress through the fall of 2006, it was hard to think it would meet the goals of the surge. In fact, the goals of the surge have not been met.

???To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq???s provinces by November [2007]. To give every Iraq citizen a stake in the country???s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year [2007]. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation???s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq???s constitution.??? (Bush's 1/10/2007 Address to the Nation)

The goals of the surge have never been met. We are now hoping to meet some revised, watered down version of the goals of the surge a year late after spending an additional $300-500 billion on occupying Iraq.

But these are also sunk costs, so they are also not part of a go forward decision in January 2009.

MCAMNESTY"S PLAN: BROKE AND BORDERLESS

If McAmnesty has been "vindicated" why CAN"T the troops come home? And for the record, our people aren't getting shot at by Germans and Japanese, so drop that analogy. It's really easy to sing "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," boast of "more wars, many more wars" lasting for hundreds of years, and threaten our young people with "I'm gonna draft ya, ya little jerk!" But talk is cheap. How about a McAmnesty speech on how he is planning to pay for his neo-con globalist adventures when he has already put us $10 TRILLION in debt, and why he has left our back door, the Mexican border, wide open for the entry of our enemies in violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution? Oh yeah, he admits he is clueless on economics, so it's not important to discuss, and only nannies and gardeners are flooding across our defenseless border, so no speech with be forthcoming. PATHETIC!

Excellent post, Howard. Senator Obama's eagerness to cut & run from Iraq, apparently oblivious to the disasterous consequences that most surely would have followed, is yet more proof that he is not ready to be president. John McCain is quite right to want to continue current policy because it is producing success. I have no doubt that Senator McCain, having fought in a war himself, is as eager as anyone to be able to bring American troops home. But if we do so recklessly and without regard for the actual conditions on the ground, we risk losing all of the gains that have been won at such great cost. I trust John McCain when it comes to issues of national security. I do not trust Barack Obama or the Democrats in general. They are weak.

Haven't he and the rest of the Democrat-run Congress said enough? It sounds like a broken record.

You want Barack to say that thing? Haven't your heard McCain interviewed by the CNN and said almost exactly the same thing 3 months ago, except for your vile presumptions. In that one-on-one interview, McCain explained that 100 years means the Japan model where imperialist and anti-America Japan became an industrialised nation with economic cooperation with US.

Are you mad? You want to make your Obama not only the biggest "flip-floper" in this election but also the greatest "LIne stealer"? It will turn out to be an audacity of lies... that's not good to his MSM dominion.

But that is not his major problem if he wins. If things happen in the future, say another 9/11 in Illinois, Obama as a president would be having a hard time to go to War. Because iif he does that, then he will be the greates Liar of them all. The return of Karma against him will be TOO COSTLY, 10 times the hate-campaign spread by the Democrats against the current seating President.

His Presidency is expected to be a short-lived one. In fact, Karma is starting to work already. He is now eating so many words from his catchy sermons against McCain and Hillary.

He has to pay more of his columnists and the MSM. Maybe another John Cusack to ensure his popularity won't be shortlived until November 4. So that all his flip-flops will be reported as "on the contrary, the flipflop in sticking public financing, will prove to be advantageous to Obama because it is just acceptable to the public to lie, especially to the Clintonians.

He has to slander McCain more and, like a devil, pretend that he is good and gentle. Forget that McCain could be his own father. Anyway, his records indicate that he is SLIME and SHADY POLITICIAN. Like what he did in his mentor to win hist Illinois seat.

Good luck to your President Obama. There are too many in the public already, awaiting for his presidency to shove to his face all that he said. They're using the YouTubes you know.

If Senator Obama had given this speech during the primary campaign, he would deserve to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. If he gave it now, it would be welcome, but would do nothing to change the fact that the precipitous withdrawal, long advocated by Senator Obama would have been catastrophic, while the "surge" that Senator McCain called for long before it was implemented has brought a decent outocme in Iraq within site. But Senator Obama will never give such a moderate, responsible speech speech because he is, above all else, a cynical politician for whom the national interest will always take a back seat to his own overweening ambition. With the majority of the public (wrongly) agreeing with him that the Iraq war was a strategic blunder, he will see no need to give such a speech. Instead, he will calibrate his comments to his perceived political needs of the moment, as he has with trade, electronic surveillance, Reverend Wright, and campaign financing. A more complete embodiment of the "old politics" is hard to imagine.