Obama Abroad

It seems that the space allowed for posting replies to comments is limited, so I'll post a reply to loriw, as well as respond to Jim F's statement that Obama is dangerous for America:

Hi loriw
> just for clarification what were the 8 of 10 issues Obama was correct about?

Wow... that's easy... just think of GW's mistaken positions, then think of the opposite:
- Iraq: Saddam had wmd's.
- Iraq: mission accomplished 4 years ago.
- Iraq: would not cost us much because the oil would pay for it.
- Iraq: we'd be seen as liberators.
- Iraq: not using seasoned Foreign Service professionals and instead using totally inexperienced staff on the basis of their loyalty to the GOP.
- Middle East: American presence would lead to democracy in the region.
- Iran: refuse to talk with them.
- Iraq: no timetable.
- Russia: looked into Putin's soul and saw a true friend.
- North Korea: also refuse to talk... it's only when GW changed his stance that progress started happening.
- Social Security privatization.
- Fema and Corps of Enginers: Cut funding before Katrina to save expenses.
- Katrina: told us there was no way to predict it. In fact he was warned many times.
- Enron: allowed the regulatory loopholes that led to the speculation.
- Banking: refusing to acknowledge a problem, as well as removing regulations which have led to our current mess.
- Economy: not acknowledging a problem until way too late.
- Guantanamo: disregarded Powell and his other generals about that.
- Energy crisis: refused to acknowledge global warming and refused to participate in Kyoto.
- Energy crisis: pushing for drilling for more oil while practically insulting proponents of conservation.
- Environment: negotiating away in secret huge amounts of federal land to developers in WY/MN.
- Plame scandal: Promising to fire whoever was involved in it.
- His team: standing behind Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Libby, all of whom have been disastrous in their judgement as well as ugly in their politics, while not standing behind Powell and other military guys w/ more experience.

That's just for starters.

Now for the things GW did right:
- Afghanistan. Too bad he got carried away w/ Iraq.
- The surge. No actual Iraqi political reconciliation yet, the stated purpose... but that may come in time.
- Immigration: oddly enough he has had a more pragmatic and humane attitude towards immigrants and I respect his position on that.

Clearly, GW's ratio of wrong to right is overwhelming.
So to answer loriw's question: on nearly all the issues GW was wrong about, Obama took the opposite stance.
But that was not hard... except for most of our ??politicians.
McCain used to have guts and speak up against GW, but not lately - he's flip-flopping to appease his party.

Given the disaster of GW, anybody who follows his course is far more dangerous to America than Obama.

The State Department warned that Iran will face further "disincentives" if it chooses not to cooperate on the nuclear issue.

"We hope the Iranian people understand that their leaders need to make a choice between cooperation, which would bring benefits to all, and confrontation, which can only led to further isolation," department spokesman Sean McCormack said in a written statement.

"The P5+1 made clear to the Iranians that our proposal was serious, and an opportunity for them to engage with the international community on our concerns."

According to McCormack, U.S. Undersecretary of State William Burns delivered the following message during the talks: "The United States is serious in its support for the package Mr. Solana conveyed in Tehran last month, the United States is serious in its support of P5+1 unity, and the United States with its P5+1 partners are serious that Iran must suspend uranium enrichment to have negotiations involving the United States."

The decision to send Burns is meant to send a strong signal but does not indicate a change of the U.S. position on Iran, McCormack said.

BIG NOTE: Until now, President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice insisted that the United States would talk to Iran only after Tehran halted its nuclear program.

There has been somewhat of a thaw in U.S.-Iranian relations in recent weeks. Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said this month his country was interested in academic and scientific exchanges with the United States.


Mottaki said Iran has proposed resuming flights between Tehran and the United States, and there has been a suggestion that U.S. diplomats be posted in Tehran.

The United States broke off diplomatic ties with Iran in April 1980, after Americans were taken hostage the year before at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran following the U.S.-backed shah.

It seems that the space allowed for posting replies to comments is limited, so I'll post a reply to loriw, as well as respond to Jim F's statement that Obama is dangerous for America:

Hi loriw
> just for clarification what were the 8 of 10 issues Obama was correct about?

Wow... that's an easy one... just think of GW's positions, then think of the opposite:
- Iraq: Saddam had wmd's. wrong
- Iraq: mission accomplished 4 years ago. wrong
- Iraq: would not cost us much because the oil would pay for it. wrong
- Iraq: we'd be seen as liberators. wrong
- Iraq: not using seasoned Foreign Service professionals and instead using totally inexperienced staff on the basis of their loyalty to the GOP. disatstrous
- Middle East: American presence would lead to democracy in the region. wrong.
- Iran: refuse to talk with them. Wrong
- Iraq: no timetable. Wrong
- Russia: looked into Putin's soul and saw a true friend. not quite, folks.
- North Korea: also refuse to talk... it's only when GW changed his stance that progress started happening.
- Social Security privatization: wrong, and even his own party didn't follow.
- Fema and Corps of Enginers: Cut funding before Katrina to save expenses. wrong
- Katrina: told us there was no way to predict it. In fact he was warned many times.
- Enron: allowed the regulatory loopholes that led to the speculation. wrong
- Banking: refusing to acknowledge a problem, as well as removing regulations which have led to our current mess. wrong
- Economy: not acknowledging a problem until way too late. wrong
- Guantanamo: disregarded Powell and his other generals about that. wrong
- Energy crisis: refused to acknowledge global warming and refused to participate in Kyoto. wrong
- Energy crisis: pushing for drilling for more oil while practically insulting proponents of conservation. wrong
- Environment: negotiating huge amounts of federal land to developers in WY/MN secret. wrong... this is a democracy, folks.
- Promising to fire whoever was involved in the Valerie Plame scandal, then breaking that promise. wrong
- His team: standing behind Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Libby, all of whom have been disastrous in their judgement as well as ugly in their politics, while not standing behind Powell and other military guys w/ more experience. wrong

The list goes on and on.
Being stupid is one thing... arrogant and stupid is twice as bad... demonizing others of doing things he's even more guilty of is 3x as bad.

Now for the things GW did right:
- Afghanistan. Too bad he got carried away w/ Iraq.
- the surge. Too bad it has not led to actual political reconciliation... but that will come in time.
- Immigration: oddly enough he has had a more compassionate, pragmatic, and humane attitude towards immigrants and I respect him for that.

Nevertheless, GW's ratio of wrong to right is rather overwhelming.
So to answer your question: on nearly all the issues GW was wrong about, Obama took the opposite stance.
Mind you... it wasn'

The British Prime Mnister and the Bush Administration, are looking at 2008-2009 Withdrawals, Research it.

Obama was Right, they are now Beating Obama's Timeline of 16-18 Months, to Withdraw.


Bush calls it a "Time Horizon" and Obama calls it a "Time Line or Time Frame" its the Same Damn Thing, just a Change of Words... A Designated Timeline to Pull Out of BagDad...Simple.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki have agreed to set a "Time Horizon" for reducing U.S. forces in Iraq, despite Bush's long opposition to deadlines for TROOP WITHDRAWAL.

In the closest the Bush administration has come to acknowledging the need for a TIME FRAME for U.S. troop cuts, the White House said on Friday that U.S. and Iraqi negotiators would seek "Aspirational Goals" for withdrawals.

Bush, an unpopular president waging an unpopular war in the twilight of his tenure, has adamantly opposed setting a schedule for scaling back U.S. forces, even as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has vowed, if elected, to withdraw troops in 16 months.

Playing down the notion it had changed its policy, the White House insisted Bush and Maliki, in a secure videoconference on Thursday, agreed troop cuts would be "based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal."

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have been working in fits and starts on a formal Status of Forces Agreement to provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to remain when an U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

Maliki, expressing his government's growing confidence as violence has decreased, last week raised the prospect of setting a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal. But U.S. officials have been more cautious.

The White House said Bush and Maliki aimed to complete a deal by the end of the month.

"The president and the prime minister agreed that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals -- such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq," the White House said.

Go figure...someone named "Fareed" supporting Obama.

www.hellnobama.com

Vietnam is not really bothering anyone now, moving Iran into a similar position would seem laudable?

Obama's positions today are reasonable. On issue after issue his first answers given a year ago were absurdly naive and dangerous. On issue after issue as he's brought in more competent advisors to correct his dangerous notions, he has come up with the very possitoins he once attacked his rivals for. He's no longer for sitting down unconditionally with our worst enemies in his first year in office. He is no longer for bringing our troups home from Iraq immediately. The good news? Given a year to change his position multiple times based on the lastest poll and his latest new advisors and the fact that his opposition's position is more popular, Obama eventually gets it right. The BAD news? As President Obama won't have a year to wait for polling concensus and the oppostion to correct his horribly judgement.

lee226, my bad. I copied the wrong name. Really sorry. I meant my first piece for sharenews and his likes, NOT you.

THis article tells us much more about the reporter than it does the subject. Zakaria is a lap dog posing as a disinterested commentator...a real bad case of puppy love. .

This one is for the VERY ignorant lee226. People like you, impervious to reason and simple logic as you are, with your closed mind, tend to fall into obvious pitfalls times over with your eyes wide open, that's the only reason this article doesn't teach you anything new.
If, by your own deduction, you already knew all the points raised in the article and still think that Senator Mccain and poor Cindy are the obvious choice, as in better for the country, then you need to re-examine your belief system, 'cos it may need a total overhaul. You know, out with the old!
No one is gonna somehow open up your brain and stuff it with the right material, though I would recommend that at this point, but for the most part you have to be the one to save you from falsehood and innuendos. Unless this article is too intellectual for you, you ought to be able to discern the good from the mediocre. Even if you are a Mccain sold-out like some others for his "hero" status, it's only fair to have an open mind when it comes to certain matters like America's standing in the world. To know , according to your piece, that Senator Mccain sees the world as good and bad, black and white with no shades of gray, to know that he advocates for bombing countries into submission and still now see him and the Bush administration mimicking Senator Obama's stand on foreign policy be it Iraq - timetable for pull out, Afghanistan - sending more troops, Iran & N.Korea - diplomacy, etc etc, and not be intellectually persuaded to reconsider your stand is mind boggling. Think!

Great Article! It is hard to believe other prominent Journalists especially the Fox-Folks would continue with their low level media jab and keep more americans in ignorance.
American people must finally refuse to be told stupid stories as Fox and other "conservative" irresponsible jounalist always do.

ABC NEWS
Only ABC Marks One Year Anniversary of the Successful Surge in Iraq
By Brent Baker
February 15, 2008 - 13:48 ET

If the surge in Iraq did not work, you can be sure the networks would all use its one-year anniversary to highlight its failure, but on Thursday night only ABC's World News, of the three broadcast network evening newscasts, marked the anniversary. With ???Surge Success??? on screen, anchor Charles Gibson noted it was one year ago today that the surge began in Iraq -- the troop buildup ordered by the President (and urged by JOHN MCCAIN) when so many of his critics (BARACK OBAMA) were calling for a draw down of troops. 30,000 additional troops started arriving a year ago

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/02/15/only-abc-marks-one-year-anniversary-successful-surge-iraq