And Why Isn’t Obama Wearing Body Armor In Those Photos?
EmailWe were wondering why those shots, below, seem to show Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in a war zone without body armor on. ABC News’ Luis Martinez asked Gen. Petraeus’ spokesman Col. Steve Boylan. Boylan’s response: "It is not a requirement for them to wear it and it is situation dependant. If you notice, General Petraeus is not wearing his body armor as well. There have been few if any attacks of late on our aircraft and the situation did not require them to be wearing body armor. If they felt that they did not need too, it is personal choice. Many times while out in various places in Iraq, I myself have not wear my IBA since the situation did not require it. It is interesting to note that the media in most cases wears their body armor when many of us are not." (Above you can see an image of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown opting for the armor.) Look for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and his allies to make the argument that the only reason Obama could be so stylish in Baghdad was because of McCain’s advocacy for the surge. — jpt UPDATE: Martinez notes for some added context that Col. Boylan points out that the photos of Obama were taken at Baghdad International Airport shortly after his arrival. Obama and Senators Hagel and Reed were greeted by Gen. Petraeus who then escorted them to a waiting helicopter that took them on an aerial tour of Baghdad before proceeding to the Green Zone. Boylan says he knows of "very few" visitors at the airport who arrive wearing body armor. When traveling through the city of Baghdad, Boylan says the wearing of body armor by visitors depends on the situation and where one’s going. It should also be noted that other photos of British PM Brown’s recent visit to Iraq show him also not wearing body armor.
Santorum: Money Will Not Defeat Obama, Ideas Will 
Rick Santorum's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
As an Obama supporter, I get It. The surge as worked. And though McCain can claim it’s because of him it is NOT. If Obama had his way there would be no need for a surge.
The fact that the PM of Iraq is backing Obama’s Iraq plan is very telling.
The fact that McCain is adopting Obama’s Afganistan policies is also VERY telling.
The fact that Bush is adopting Obama’s foreign policy is also very telling.
Obama has the judgement to lead on day #1
Posted by: Vanessa | July 21, 2008, 5:41 pm 5:41 pm
Was Obama walking around a Baghdad market or was he in the Green Zone? Was he in a coalition aircraft over a quiet area or over an actively hostile area? Aren’t these salient questions you should be asking before lobbing the McCain campaign some talking points that will most likely end up being inane.
And what about McCain visiting that market last year in Baghdad surrounded by 100 soldiers in armored vehicles and attack helicopters overhead, wearing body armor and then proclaiming that Iraq is safe?
Posted by: Brian | July 21, 2008, 5:53 pm 5:53 pm
The McCain camp is really desperate.
Posted by: Trixie | July 21, 2008, 6:00 pm 6:00 pm
McCain’s answer to everything, these days, is to say “The reason Obama can do anything is because the surged worked.” It’s getting old, and doesn’t have any punch any longer.
Add to that the fact that the Iraqi government is significantly closer to Obama’s position on withdrawal, and, the fact that President Bush is now following Obama’s proposals on both Afghanistan and Iran, and that whole “expertise in foreign affairs” advantage that McCain supposedly has is starting to melt away.
Posted by: CT Voter | July 21, 2008, 6:01 pm 6:01 pm
“Look for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and his allies to make the argument that the only reason Obama could be so stylish in Baghdad was because of McCain’s advocacy for the surge.”
I bet they’ll use it too!
Posted by: phi | July 21, 2008, 6:10 pm 6:10 pm
It doesn’t matter if the surge worked Senator McCain, we shouldn’t have been there to begin with. You seem to forget to point out that most basic fact.
Posted by: Scott NH | July 21, 2008, 6:15 pm 6:15 pm
You need to read the Washington Post, too. The Iraqis are now saying end end of 2010, but experts have also pointed out that the Iraqis are playing games because of internal politics (Maliki needs to seem nationalistic). Also, Obama has had three separate deadlines — he’s just making this up as he goes along without regard to military needs. Anyone remember this Obama press release?
Obama Offers Plan to Stop Escalation of Iraq War, Begin Phased Redeployment of Troops
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Tommy Vietor or Robert Gibbs, 202-228-5511
Date: January 30, 2007
Obama Offers Plan to Stop Escalation of Iraq War, Begin Phased Redeployment of Troops. Goal to Redeploy All Combat Brigades out of Iraq by March 31, 2008
Posted by: katmandu | July 21, 2008, 6:19 pm 6:19 pm
Scott,
You are probably right, we shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
But the problem is, Obama actually was for the war in the beginning.
From an interview with Tim Russert:
In July of ’04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of ’04.
Posted by: ja | July 21, 2008, 6:21 pm 6:21 pm
From an interview with Tim Russert:
In July of ’04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of ’04.
Yeah but the Obamabots don’t want you to tell them that. They believe anything that comes out of his lying, flip flopping mouth.
Posted by: J | July 21, 2008, 6:28 pm 6:28 pm
The surge worked. The war is all but over because the surge worked. Obama or his supporters can try to claim credit for the current situation in Iraq, but that is totally bogus. The surge (which McCain backed, Bush was against initially, and Obama was against until after it worked) is the only reason Obama can be standing around with no body armor, trying to take credit for his complete lack of judgment.
Posted by: Buford Gooch | July 21, 2008, 6:29 pm 6:29 pm
ja,
Sorry, but Obama spoke out against the war BEFORE it even started.
In retrospect, it makes even more sense today than it did in 2002.
Posted by: Jane Hussein | July 21, 2008, 6:33 pm 6:33 pm
Hey body armor would be a DISTRACTION.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Barack Obama attracting 42% of the vote while John McCain earns 41%. That’s the lowest level of support measured for Obama since he clinched the Democratic Presidential nomination on June 3.!
Posted by: HP Boston | July 21, 2008, 6:34 pm 6:34 pm
And here is a quote from John McCain:
believe that, obviously, we will remove a threat to America’s national security because we will find there are still massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
So much for sound judgement!
Posted by: Jane Hussein | July 21, 2008, 6:38 pm 6:38 pm
That was a beautiful broadside against the media…bravo Colonel!
Posted by: JD | July 21, 2008, 6:39 pm 6:39 pm
THE SURGE HAS NOT WORKED!!
Reduction in violence was never a benchmark set forth by the White House.
Posted by: Jane Hussein | July 21, 2008, 6:40 pm 6:40 pm
Its unlikely that BHO would be in Iraq is the surge had not worked.
Posted by: brigitte | July 21, 2008, 6:40 pm 6:40 pm
@Vanessa: “The fact that McCain is adopting Obama’s Afganistan policies is also VERY telling.”
A presumptive nominee does not make policy. He has opinions.
Had he convened his committee as required, he would have informed opinions.
Don’t get ahead of the game.
Posted by: len | July 21, 2008, 6:44 pm 6:44 pm
IF the surge has made Iraq a success, then why aren’t the troops coming home?
But frankly, six years, over 4,000 US dead and 600 billion dollars is much too high a price for this so called success anyway you cut it.
Posted by: JR | July 21, 2008, 6:45 pm 6:45 pm
The surge worked folks are really saying:
“It was ok not to win the war against those who attacked us because we had to try and clean up the horrible, horrible mess we made in Iraq.”
Posted by: Last Call | July 21, 2008, 6:48 pm 6:48 pm
I’m voting for him but I don’t Obama is in a park in Baghdad. It would be silly to wear BA in a secure base. Nobody walks the streets like that I bet.
Posted by: Last Call | July 21, 2008, 6:50 pm 6:50 pm
Please do not ignore facts:
The Iraqi admin has stated that Maliki’s comments were misinterpreted and taken out of context, and that in no way are they endorsing any candidate.
Obama did not vote on the Iraqi war. he do not have the military intelligence granted to him to do so. He had admitted himself in an interview that had he the intelligence, he is not sure how he would have voted.
Obama says more attention should be paid to Afghanistan, yet headed the foreign affairs subcommittee that had oversight over NATO, which could have helped Afghanistan, and he had held no substantial hearings at all, because he was too busy trying to be Prez. He could have helped Afghanistan, and expedited the safety and security for that country, and yet he did nothing, in favor of selfish political opportunity.
Oh yes, that is judgement from day one.
Bad judgement, just like your vote for Obama.
Posted by: dblstndrd | July 21, 2008, 6:53 pm 6:53 pm
the bigger question is about Reed no longer being in the pictures perhaps becasue they realized as I did Reed won’t be picked because of height.
I am short and I have to say that I thought the two of them standing next to each other in those pics from Afghanistan looked like a circus act with the height difference between Obama and Reed.
I think they realize no more shots and chances are they won’t be standing next to each other on the convention floor…unless they borrow sly stallone and tom cruise’s apple box…or both of them.
Posted by: dl | July 21, 2008, 6:55 pm 6:55 pm
According to the “Fact Sheet: The New Way Forward in Iraq ” (aka The Surge) issued by the White House, Is Rooted In Six Fundamental Elements” as follow:
1. Let the Iraqis lead;
2. Help Iraqis protect the population;
3. Isolate extremists;
4. Create space for political progress;
5. Diversify political and economic efforts; and
6. Situate the strategy in a regional approach.
So John McCain is saying ALL these benchmarks have been successfully completed?
REally? When did this happen, LOL!
Posted by: Jane Hussein | July 21, 2008, 7:00 pm 7:00 pm
“IF the surge has made Iraq a success, then why aren’t the troops coming home? ”
Because they’ll have to stop off in Afghanistan first………………..
Posted by: hmmmmmm | July 21, 2008, 7:08 pm 7:08 pm
“Obama has the judgement to lead on day #1″
Obama didn’t have the judgment to leave an anti-American church for 20 years.
Posted by: Benson | July 21, 2008, 7:13 pm 7:13 pm
Obama is not wearing body armour because it would not fit over his giant EGO…
Posted by: Robert Marley | July 21, 2008, 7:22 pm 7:22 pm
Well, Benson,
“Day 1″ for some folks…
lasts twenty years. ;-)
Posted by: hmmmmmm | July 21, 2008, 7:22 pm 7:22 pm
“Obama is not wearing body armour because it would not fit over his giant EGO…
or his E A R S !!!!!
Posted by: eyes wide open | July 21, 2008, 7:23 pm 7:23 pm
Policies or Opinion which ever you decide. The fact that McCain is adopting Obama’s positions and citing them as his own is as I said earlier VERY telling.
The PM of Iraq backing Obama’s position on the withdrawal demonstrates Obama’s leadership and judgement
What I want to know is what’s McCain definition of victory.
When attack was up in Iraq he wanted to stay. When attack is down he still wants to stay. When will we get out? 100 years?
Posted by: Vanessa | July 21, 2008, 7:27 pm 7:27 pm
hmmm
the surge wa not about reducing violence even Obama said that violence would be reduced…it was a question of political move to have a central strong governemtn…
the problem is this surge is built on the backs of a tactic we used in the 80′s for afghanistan where we gave money to some radicals to fight against our enemy…only to end up with Osama Bin Laden, the taliban and al qaeda.
it is a temproary and chances are a very dangerous temporary fix for political reasons.
not to mention al qaeda wanted the fighting to end because they did not want and can’t afford to be blamed for muslim disunity.
this is a page out of ollie north’s playbook.
and it is bad.
McCain’s gaffes on shia and sunni and iran and al qaeda (repeatedly) show a complete misunderstanding of the situation… on every level besides “if we throw in more troops there will be less violence”
ugh
Posted by: dl | July 21, 2008, 7:27 pm 7:27 pm
Why wouldn’t a surge work? Iraq wasn’t having these conflicts under a dictatorship. Police states always work. It’s what happens when the police leave that is the true test. just because there is calm when we have tons of soldiers around doesn’t mean it signifies that progress is made. I’ve seen the same statements made about D.C. streets and the violence always continues when the police stop their 24 hour patrols.
The truth is we should have never started Iraq before Afghanistan was finished.
Posted by: tonya | July 21, 2008, 7:37 pm 7:37 pm
Vanessa:
The fact that McCain is adopting Obama’s positions and citing them as his own is as I said earlier VERY telling.”
How about YOU citing them; I’m at a loss here as to which of Obama’s recent positions you are referring.
But please use R E A L cites.
Thanks
Posted by: eyes wide open | July 21, 2008, 7:37 pm 7:37 pm
Of course Obama was against the Iraqi war – isn’t the Opposition supposed to be against anything and everything the Party in power is for? The only reason that most of the Dems in Congress / Senate were for the war was because of 9/11 – most of them put partisanship behind them. Obama is a non-issue because he wasn’t even there to vote, so he does not matter. When he criticises judgement on Iraq, he is also criticising John Kerry, John Edwards – all the minions who now support him. By his logic, he should not even consider them for his cabinet because of their lack of judgment, and Denis K. should be the presumptive Dem nominee because Denis voted against the war. Lol!
Anyway, Judgment Day is here! The surge worked and Obama is proving this by the fact that he is not wearing body armour. Course it could be because he thinks he is the Divine One – his arrogance knows no bounds or ends, so I wouldn’t be surprised!
Posted by: Beckie | July 21, 2008, 7:47 pm 7:47 pm
I don’t think “the Surge” alone had anything at all to do with the decrease in attacks on U.S. troops, simply because the so-called “insurgents” are not as lavishly funded nor do they have an endless supply of weapons and ammo as we were led to believe.
In fact, the rhetoric accusing others (Syria!) of providing entry to Iraq and supplying arms to these “insurgents” has ceased now that they have or are running out of materials to manufacturing IEDs or any other weapon.
Posted by: RandoGallz | July 21, 2008, 7:49 pm 7:49 pm
Thanks Jake, you caught Obama in yet another embarrassing and very revealing situation.
President McCain – get use to it!
Posted by: Jo | July 21, 2008, 7:50 pm 7:50 pm
Forget the body armor, where is his flag pin?
Posted by: Mack | July 21, 2008, 7:52 pm 7:52 pm
Look for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and his allies to make the argument that the only reason Obama could be so stylish in Baghdad was because of McCain’s advocacy for the surge.
Kinda obvious, wouldn’t you say?
Posted by: jimmybob | July 21, 2008, 7:55 pm 7:55 pm
McCain was against sending troops to Afganistan. Obama’s Afganistan position is and as always been to send at least 7,000 more troops to Afganistan. Some time last year or whom ever knows McCain decided to flip-flop and adopt Obama’s positions.
McCain wants to stay in Iraq and add more troops to Afganistan with our economy in disarray
Now that the PM of Iraq wants a withdrawal by 2010 McCain will soon have to adopt Obama’s Iraq position.
Posted by: Vanessa | July 21, 2008, 8:09 pm 8:09 pm
McCain is a cranky old troll with nothing going for him except being a POW, 26 years in the senate and getting a social security check he doen’t need.
Someone needs to ask McCain if him getting a SS check he doesn’t need is a disgrace.
Posted by: Mack Truck | July 21, 2008, 8:14 pm 8:14 pm
Rando.
D..E..N..I..A..L ?
Posted by: Temagami | July 21, 2008, 8:18 pm 8:18 pm
brigitte.
No doubt. If the Surge hadn’t worked, Obama wouldn’t have been able to go to Iraq. Obama’s prediction of Surge failure clearly showed his lack judgement in general and his lack of savvy re foreign policy and national defense in particular – AS RECENT POLLS HAVE SHOWN LOPSIDED SUPPORT FOR MACAIN OVER OBAMA RE FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL DEFENSE. OBAMA REALLY MUST HAVE FELT PRETTY AWKWARD AT HIS MEETING WITH PETRAEUS – I’D HAVE GIVEN A MILLION BUCKS TO HAVE BEEN THERE!!
Posted by: Manitu | July 21, 2008, 8:33 pm 8:33 pm
Obama: Another day, another policy shift! Proving you can fool some of the people all of the time!
Posted by: Soetoro No! | July 21, 2008, 8:33 pm 8:33 pm
ABC asks: “Why Isn’t Obama Wearing Body Armor?”
He is probably the safest American citizen in a Middle-Eastern country. The reason(s) should be obvious.
Posted by: Rhys | July 21, 2008, 8:35 pm 8:35 pm
Mack Truck’
PROFOUND!
Posted by: Jimbo | July 21, 2008, 8:35 pm 8:35 pm
McCains lack of judgement supporting the war to begin with shows his lack of leadership.
Posted by: Vanessa | July 21, 2008, 8:37 pm 8:37 pm
Some of McCain’s insights over the course of the war:
I think the victory will be rapid, within about three weeks.”
John McCain, January 28, 2003.
“It’s clear that the end is very much in sight…It won’t be long. It, it’ll be a fairly short period of time.”
John McCain, April 9, 2003.
“I’m confident we’re on the right course.”
John McCain, March 7, 2004.
“We’re either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months.”
John McCain, November 12, 2006.
Posted by: Dennis | July 21, 2008, 8:37 pm 8:37 pm
And he still doesn’t support the surge! Amazing!
Posted by: LarryT | July 21, 2008, 8:38 pm 8:38 pm
Hey, where is all that oil from Iraq that the crazies say we went to war for? I sure as heck could use some?
Posted by: Temagami | July 21, 2008, 8:42 pm 8:42 pm
vanessa.
Which WAR are you referring to?
Posted by: Temagami | July 21, 2008, 8:44 pm 8:44 pm
The “surge” (escalation) may have “worked”, but at what cost? If we send another 200,000 troops to Iraq, we could probably stop nearly ALL violence… until the troops leave.
It’s still the WRONG war! Our enemies are in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they have been since 2001.
Someday, maybe historians can figure out why Bush invaded and occupied the wrong country.
And don’t say it was all about oil, because we got more oil out of Iraq when Saddam Hussein was in charge.
America has WASTED 500 BILLION dollars! For WHAT?!
Posted by: Rhys | July 21, 2008, 8:45 pm 8:45 pm
Where is Obama? There he is — looking down his nose at his followers!
Posted by: Soetoro No! | July 21, 2008, 8:51 pm 8:51 pm
Dennis.
Three weeks was about right. McCain didn’t count on mismanaged occupation – McCain WAS ALWAYS FOR MORE TROOPS TO DO THE JOB AND GENERAL PETRAEUS FINALLY GOT THEM AND THE REST IS HISTORY, GET OVER IT. OBAMA DOESN”T HAVE MUCH GOING FOR HIM RE FOREIGN POLICY OR NATIONAL DEFENSE AS RECENT POLLS HAVE CLEARLY SHOWN – UNLESS YOU INCLUDE PHOTO-OPS.
Posted by: Temagami | July 21, 2008, 8:52 pm 8:52 pm
Rhys.
Don’t think you noticed or even care, but our occupation of Iraq has forced the bad guys to put most of their efforts INTO IRAQ – WHICH HAS MEANT THAT THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO PLAN ATTACKS ON USA – I know you don’t believe that -nor want to.
Posted by: Temagami | July 21, 2008, 8:58 pm 8:58 pm
Wow, Jo, nice S-T-R-E-T-C-H… Amazing flexibility, except you make no sense!!!
McCain is the one embarassing himself of late — just about every day!
President Obama — get used to it!
Posted by: jackt51 | July 21, 2008, 8:59 pm 8:59 pm
Obama campaign: Whatever you do, don’t wear green in the Middle East.
If you have to ask, go to Politico and read the whole hilarious story.
This is more proof that Obama and his crew are amateurs.
Posted by: katmandu | July 21, 2008, 9:02 pm 9:02 pm
Temagami,
Are you referring to the same oil that bush, cheney and mccain claimed would pay for the costs of the war? yes, i’m wondering where that oil is as well. good point.
Posted by: virgil | July 21, 2008, 9:02 pm 9:02 pm
Interesting that two days after the great polls for McCain re foreign policy and national defense, Obama suddenly became “THE EXPERT” re. same – TALK ABOUT POWER OF PRESS!!
Posted by: Jimbo | July 21, 2008, 9:04 pm 9:04 pm
Temagami, of COURSE I “noticed” that the bad guys have concentrated efforts on Iraq… because we were there! If we had gone after them IMMEDIATELY (and we KNEW where they were), we would not still be over there wasting money and lives.
America has not fought a war to WIN since 1945. When Harry Truman fired General Douglas MacArthur, it was the beginning of “pulled-punches wars”, where there is NO “winner”.
Barry Goldwater lost the Presidential election because he said we should either WIN in Vietnam or GET OUT… one or the other. For more than four decades, Americans have “supported” no-win wars.
On September 12th, 2001, Afghanistan should have been turned into a glow-in-the-dark “parking lot”. We would not have the problems we’re still having seven years later.
Posted by: Rhys | July 21, 2008, 9:05 pm 9:05 pm
Virgil.
I know that Bush detractors say that we went to war for Irqui oil, but I really don’t think that Bush was counting on that, nor suggested it. Do you have a source? IRAQ DOES OWE US BIGTIME!!
Posted by: Temagami | July 21, 2008, 9:09 pm 9:09 pm
Rhys.
There is a lot of truth to what you are saying. McCain would agree. If we would had mined the harbors earlier instead of later, it would have been a no brainer. I liked LBJ – been to his ranch, but could he could not stand up to the crazies and the press – THE PRESS LOST THE WAR THERE FOR US – NOT THE MILITARY. YOU ARE RIGHT – THE WAIT AND SEE GUYS WILL BEAT YOU EVERY TIME – MCCAIN IS NOT ONE OF THOSE.
Posted by: Temagami | July 21, 2008, 9:22 pm 9:22 pm
Barack Obama is already leading by allowing the Iraqi’s and others in the world to speak their mind more freely than ever, and attempt to get their country back. He will be the strongest and wisest leader that this country has seen since Lincoln. The vitriol expressed by so many comments here serves only to reveal the anxiety that so many sore loser cynical Democrats and scared Republicans now feel, knowing that the time of their rule will soon come to an end.
Posted by: robby10001 | July 21, 2008, 9:31 pm 9:31 pm
It all comes down to whether or not you think we should continue the bush policies. If you think the war should continue indefinitely, while we spend $10,000,000,000 a month, and you think that bush has done well with the economy then mc-more-war is your man. If you think that it’s time we start to get out of iraq and do some positive things for the average American instead of just the top 1% then vote for Obama.
Posted by: pt | July 21, 2008, 9:37 pm 9:37 pm
McCain WAS ALWAYS FOR . . . the war”
Posted by: Temagami | Jul 21, 2008 8:52:12 PM
______________
It goes without saying (to most) that there would be no need for a surge without the war McBush gave us.
Posted by: rhbate | July 21, 2008, 9:39 pm 9:39 pm
This is more proof that Obama and his crew are amateurs.
Posted by: katmandu | Jul 21, 2008 9:02:00 PM
________________
Is General Patraeus an amateur as well?
Posted by: rhbate | July 21, 2008, 9:41 pm 9:41 pm
I’m referring to the Iraqi War.
Posted by: Vanessa | July 21, 2008, 9:41 pm 9:41 pm
I think he just doesn’t want to be photographed in anything that would smack of Dukakis and the helmet.
Posted by: Beth | July 21, 2008, 9:41 pm 9:41 pm
got hit with a mack truck:
McCain is a cranky old troll with nothing going for him except being a POW, 26 years in the senate and getting a social security check he doesn’t need.
Ahem…..Senators don’t get social security.
Obama is a cranky young troll with a big head and huge ears which forecast his mood swings and shifts of opinion
as accurately as a rain gauge.
Oh….. he was never a POW , he spent time being paid by his country for service… serving himself to life on the political speedway…. with very little attention paid to his constituents or their problems.
I like them plain;
I’ll take:
HILLARY OR MCCAIN…
but always:
COUNTRY OVER WALL-EYED BROKEN DNC PARTY!
Posted by: hmmmmm | July 21, 2008, 9:42 pm 9:42 pm
Hey, where is all that oil from Iraq that the crazies say we went to war for? I sure as heck could use some?
Posted by: Temagami | Jul 21, 2008 8:42:07 PM
________________
Yeah, right! Those crazies like Bush, Cheney and McCain said the war would be paid for by Iraqi oil. Where is that oil anyway.
Posted by: rhbate | July 21, 2008, 9:44 pm 9:44 pm
Rhbate.
SOURCE?
Posted by: Temagami | July 21, 2008, 9:47 pm 9:47 pm
Simple, Sen. Obama and his group are in the rear echelon and theirfore in no danger. Have deployed 14 times in that area, I can assure you Obama will not know much about Afghanistan due to this trip.
Posted by: Dr Hubert, Lt Col, USAF, Retired (2005) | July 21, 2008, 9:49 pm 9:49 pm
Obama has the best foreign policy on Iraq. As he said in an interview with Terry Moran, Obama does not want to:
“get boxed in into what I consider two false choices. Which is either, I have a rigid timeline of such and such a date, come hell or high water, we’ve gotten our combat troops out and I am blind to anything that happens in the intervening 16 months. Or alternatively, I am completely deferring to whatever the commander on the ground says which is what George Bush says he’s doing. In which case, I’m not doing my job as Commander-in-Chief.”
The interview will be on Nightline tonight.
Posted by: cincyr | July 21, 2008, 9:49 pm 9:49 pm
The surge worked. The war is all but over because the surge worked.
Posted by: Buford Gooch | Jul 21, 2008 6:29:53 PM
_______________
Let’s not forget, there would have been no need for a “surge” if McBush and Cheney had not started the war in the first place. Additionally, over 4100 dead American soldiers would still be alive. Wake up and try thinking!
Posted by: rhbate | July 21, 2008, 9:54 pm 9:54 pm
Obama’s trip to middle-east reminds me of when there was all that political trouble in Central America. Lib types went down to “Observe’ for a couple of weeks and came back as “Experts.” Some things never change.
Posted by: Jimbo | July 21, 2008, 9:58 pm 9:58 pm
I can assure you Obama will not know much about Afghanistan due to this trip.
Posted by: Dr Hubert, Lt Col, USAF, Retired (2005) | Jul 21, 2008 9:49:42 PM
______________
You really think by going to Iraq it will make a big difference. If so, I wonder why Roosevelt did not go to France or Germany to learn the situation on the ground before he entered WWll. I guess he was just negligent. tsk tsk
Do you think your former rank and occupation gives you some kind of gravitas. I would be more impressed to know what you are doing now.
Posted by: rhbate | July 21, 2008, 9:58 pm 9:58 pm
In justifying his position in Iraq, McCain said on the CBS morning show that there is a very dangerous area on the border of Iraq and Pakistan. Someone should have told him those borders are over 750 miles apart. Brain fart, I guess. Or maybe just old age.
Posted by: rhbate | July 21, 2008, 10:03 pm 10:03 pm
I’m still trying to figure out why mccain confused the Packers with the Steelers 2 weeks ago while speaking to a Pittsburgh crowd. He said he used the names of the famous Steelers Defensive line of the 1970′s, too bad these guys weren’t even playing when mccain was being interrogated. He is either going senile or he was trying to pull one over on the Pittsburgh crowd, either way this is BAD news for mc-more-war. You can check out the article by going into google and typing “mccain steelers” and picking the first link.
Obama 2008!!!
Posted by: pt | July 21, 2008, 10:07 pm 10:07 pm
when are you all going to see that McCain is wrong…this surge was a tactic that we have used before…
he is playing roulette and when someone tells him to stop because he stopped the bleeding but it might restart and soon…
he says I got the bleeding to stop keep us at the roulette table…
uh no.
OBL the taliban alqaeda al zawarhee…and the rest…came from the tactic of giving insurgent radical muslim groups momney to fight the people we wanted… and then they turned around and used it on us…
they are playing roulette for an election year.
so all the NObama spin garbage…doesn’t mean crap if you look at the tactics they are using…
McCain is taking a page out of an old and damging to the uS playbook…and he doesn’t even understand that al qaeda and Iran aren’t the same team…as he confuses shia and sunni…
a D+ would be generous
Posted by: dl | July 21, 2008, 10:07 pm 10:07 pm
the ONLY reason there is less violence in iraq is because we are paying different groups to stop fighting each other. has nothing to do with the “surge”.
Posted by: johnosahon | July 21, 2008, 10:11 pm 10:11 pm
Rhbate, you wrote: “Additionally, over 4100 dead American soldiers would still be alive. Wake up and try thinking!” That is rather presumptuous! Obviously you are not aware that MORE military personnel have died here at home since the invasion of Iraq.
Now as for your comment that Bush and Cheney started the war, you are still sticking to the Liberal talking points. The war started when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990. We were only in a cease fire since 1991 pending Saddam Hussein’s compliance of several conditions. After 12 years of Saddam Hussein’s failure to comply, and his continued failure to comply following the UN Security Council’s final ultimatum, and Bush’s own final ultimatum, Bush ended the cease fire. So there would not have been a need for the surge had Saddam Hussein just complied with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire.
Posted by: James Danley | July 21, 2008, 10:14 pm 10:14 pm
Jimbo
your ignorance on this issue helps Osama Bin Laden… al qaeda…and the terrorists that have regrouped.
Please I beg stop with the moronic unaware arguments.
this war hurt us worse than you can imagine.
and all the spin from these politicians who invested so much of their futures on hawk attitudes when they don’t understand the dynamics of the tribal and religious differences and history…
is just that…old politicians who have a hard time learning about other cultures and think we deal with every enemy like we did in the cold war.
read the history of al qaeda and afghanistan and the CIA giving Osama Bin Laden’s mentor moneys and guns to fight another enemy
I am sorry but I am angry tongiht at this d. cheney bologne…that is all lies…and which mcCain is now pushing.
Posted by: dl | July 21, 2008, 10:17 pm 10:17 pm
hmm
the problem with your post is McCain was advocating the war in iraq earlier than Bush…go look it up.
McCain AND Lieberman honorary and vocal co-chairs of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq…which Bush own press secretary has now said was the PR arm for the war effort. that was engendered with the task of seeling this war.
and where are the other leaders of that committee of lobbyists…
look no further than the entire McCain campaign team. His chief foreign policy adviosors…his chief campaign chair…
and the list goes on…
and that is why they have over and over during this primary given the same speeches about Iran.
Posted by: dl | July 21, 2008, 10:24 pm 10:24 pm
temagami
everyone expected violence to go down…that was not the goal…
you put hundreds of more troops on the ground violence goes down…
the goal was to have an operating central governemtn that could handle it…
the extent that any security has gotten stronger has been on the backs of promises to the insurgents that can’t be filled…along with the guns and money just like we did in afghanistan to the OBL’s mentor that helped create al qaeda.
this surge is not a success because it is stitched together with temporary stitching that fools people like you to think it worked…all for political theater for an election year…
where Bush and Cheney and the rest are probably going to be in a lot of trouble when a new administration moves into the house and they need to find a way to get the “bodies” out.
Posted by: dl | July 21, 2008, 10:28 pm 10:28 pm
Beth wrote:
“I think he just doesn’t want to be photographed in anything that would smack of Dukakis and the helmet.”
I think that’s the most intelligent comment on this post so far.
Posted by: cincyr | July 21, 2008, 10:32 pm 10:32 pm
“everyone expected violence to go down…that was not the goal…”
snipped from DL
BUT THAT WAS THE DESIRED EFFECT!
AND IT WORKED… FOR WHATEVER THE REASON.
AND THAT’S HOW COME YOUR BELOVED B O
COULD VISIT IRAQ IN RELATIVE SAFETY AND COMFORT!
So McCain was right in supporting the surge….. and Obama .. misspoke… again!
Posted by: eyes wide open | July 21, 2008, 10:33 pm 10:33 pm
eyes wide open
the surge didn’t “work” because violence went down…
THAT WAS NOT THE POINT OF THE SURGE
that is like saying …
we bought a treadmilll to lose weight
it worked…I turned the treadmill on and it moves…
Posted by: dl | July 21, 2008, 10:36 pm 10:36 pm
manitu
and every time they regrouped more of their opponents died…
only this time unlike the plains indians…it’s not just us against them…there is the rest of the world watching and if the bad guys keep coming at us and convincing part sof the rest of the world to join them…we are in for a very bad future…
maybe you should ask a military academic who specializes in shia sunni conflicts or the history of terrorism in the middle east…
the same people who are saying the surge worked because al qaeda knows it can not be seen as creating the conflict between the two muslim communities…
it hurts them with too many in the muslim community…
they were not happy with their moron pushing the insurgents…go read the people who study these groups…not the ones who studied how to beat the indians or the germans…
this is a totally different battlefield and thus is the problem we screwed up in the first place.
Posted by: dl | July 21, 2008, 10:41 pm 10:41 pm
the point of the surge was not for obama to visit
the point of the surge was so we could leave.
Posted by: dl | July 21, 2008, 10:44 pm 10:44 pm
dl, you wrote: “that is like saying …we bought a treadmilll to lose weight.” And if you lose weight then it worked!
The surge did provide enough security and time for the Iraqi Parliament to “satisfactorily” meet 15 of the 18 benchmarks. So the surge worked and is continuing to work.
Posted by: James Danley | July 21, 2008, 10:46 pm 10:46 pm
di.
What you fail to understand that after Bush leaves office the terrorist goal will still be unchanged – kill all infidels – that certainly means us. Are you saying that you think negotiation is part of the terrorist mindset? I believe that you do. The terorist cerainly does not. What am I mising here?
Posted by: Temagami | July 21, 2008, 10:52 pm 10:52 pm
Saddam Hussein just complied with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire.
Posted by: James Danley | Jul 21, 2008 10:14:55 PM
_______________
Dream on. The UN inspector, Richard Clark, said there were no WMD’s in Iraq. But Bush and his cronies doctored the evidence to make it appear otherwise. And anytime someone tries to get the facts, McBush and crew cry,”executive privilege.” I understand that many people have been fooled, but fortunately I am not one of them.
Posted by: rhbate | July 21, 2008, 10:54 pm 10:54 pm
james Danley
no the goal of the surge was to create a space for the government to fix itself make itself strong enough for us to leave.
the problem is not the military part of that…that was never going to be the problem.
the benchmarks are not a stable govenment… they are movement in that direction…
the problem is like Biden said …there is never going to be a stable governemtn. for us to leave.
this governemtn is based on bribes and a backing off of al qaeda because they were losing the support of the muslims they needed to build themselves with.
Biden understood that before we went into the surge.
that is the problem…idiots aren’t understanding this.
we spent billions on the surge… and have government and quiet…
and the other part of that is they used that tactic they used in afghanistan giving money and guns to “insurgent forces” which will now possibly make it even worse…alll in the name they saw that the surge alone was not going to work at all.
this is a ruse….
the success of the surge would be a government that is strong enough to stand on it’s own.
we don’t know that…and looking at how they got to the governemtn they have and the quiet…prospects don’t look so good…so we need to get out to see if the foundation that is there would hold…using bad old tactics from afghanistan and al qaeda hopefully staying away even after we leave because they still can’t be seen as rocking the boat… but if we aren’t occupying anymore they may say screw it…we’re not getting the recruits from their occupation we might as well go try and take over iraq…
in the meantime they have afghanistan…pakistan…and beyond from the fallout from our taking our eye off the ball and continueing.
Posted by: dl | July 21, 2008, 10:55 pm 10:55 pm
I think the surge was a little too late. So many lives lost, it should have been done years ago. This is no victory.
Posted by: erin | July 21, 2008, 11:00 pm 11:00 pm
temagami
do you understand what this war has done to recruitment for al qaeda?
do you understand what the first fatwa out of the afghan /palestine/russian conflicts were?
fatwa called against occupying forces on Muslim lands.
it is the first driving force behind all of this…it is the most unifying fatwa they have. across divides.
when Bush leaves our allies may not look at us as a “force of evil” (as polls out this past week show they do)
this image that Bush has created and McCain continues does not helpus at all.
you know our allies that we need to fight the war on terror? 5 to 1 they want Obama…and if you throw in Russia it’s 4 top 1.
Mccain does not help those numbers one iota.
Posted by: dl | July 21, 2008, 11:01 pm 11:01 pm
I think that that when Bush leaves office, some of these bloggers actually believe that the terrorists will forget about their stated goal – TO KILL ALL THE INFIDELS. Makes it kindasorta tough to have rational dialog here.
Posted by: Temagami | July 21, 2008, 11:02 pm 11:02 pm
temagami
never said the terrorists are going to stop
what I said is Bush and McCain make it worse…they do.
yuo need to starve rats…if you go to kill them with guns…you better have all of them in your sights all at once…
poison and starvation are the only way to kill an infestation of rats.
Posted by: dl | July 21, 2008, 11:06 pm 11:06 pm
At least Obama knows where Iraq is located.
This morning, McCain made reference to a NON-EXISTENT Iraq-Pakistan border (Good Morning America)…
Obama ’08.
Posted by: Ida | July 21, 2008, 11:11 pm 11:11 pm
more than any other issue we need against the terrorists
is good will from our allies.
we need good will and a positive image.
Not to look like the new darth vader of the world.
we need intelligence that comes from allies
we need the peoples of those countries to want to be our ally
we need the southeast asian villager to like us better than the recruitment officers from the terrorists who are coming into their houses to like us better than them.
those are all more powerful than anything John McCain can do to counter the policies he is proposing and has proposed regarding our foreign policy.
Posted by: dl | July 21, 2008, 11:14 pm 11:14 pm
The point here is that Obama was WRONG ON THE SURGE, MCCAIN WAS RIGHT. THE ISSUE HERE IS ONE OF JUDGEMENT, LACK OF ON OBAMA’S PART. GERERAL PETRAEUS HAD A JOB TO DO AND THESE LEFT WINGNUTS INCLUDING OBAMA ANNOUNCE THAT THE WAR WAS ALREADY LOST – GREAT PRESIDENTIAL MATERIAL. I’ll BET GENERAL PETRAEUS WISHED THAT HE COULD HAVE BEEN A CIVILIAN FOR TEN MIN DURING HIS MEETING WITH OBAMA.
Posted by: Temagami | July 21, 2008, 11:15 pm 11:15 pm
Mccain is eating obama’s lunch on iraq and afghanistan. obama has absolutely no experience or credibility with our troops and veterans. they will vote for mccain in mass.
mccain was right on iraq and afghanistan. obama was wrong.
mccain has the qualifications and strong bipartisan record to lead us on day 1
Posted by: Kurt | July 21, 2008, 11:16 pm 11:16 pm
Why isn’t Obama wearing body armor? Maybe it’s the troop surge?
I sence another Jimmy Carter type presidency on the horizon….
Posted by: Scott Buchele | July 21, 2008, 11:21 pm 11:21 pm
Calm down Temagami!
Judgement you say? Well, well, well, guess who tried to save us from the entire Iraq fiasco in the first place?
Is it not Senator Obama? Unfortunately, MCCAIN’S JUDGEMENT FAILED HIM WHEN IT MATTERED MOST – AT THE FIRST POINT OF DECISION MAKING.
Posted by: Gillian | July 21, 2008, 11:21 pm 11:21 pm
Germany, France and Great Britain have recently elected pro Bush leaders. Are these the allies that di was referring to? Actually, all the intel services of these nations have contributed immensely to the war on terrorism.
Posted by: Manitu | July 21, 2008, 11:23 pm 11:23 pm
The point here is that Obama was WRONG ON THE SURGE
Posted by: Temagami | Jul 21, 2008 11:15:23 PM
_______________________
The real point is: McBush was WRONG ON THE WAR!
Posted by: rhbate | July 21, 2008, 11:26 pm 11:26 pm
Rhbate.
McBush? Running out of good material?
Posted by: Manitu | July 21, 2008, 11:33 pm 11:33 pm
Is it a fiasco that a tyrant is destroyed, that a nation becomes a democracy, bad guys are defeated, that our butts are kept safe over here? Sorry you don’t agree.
Posted by: Manitu | July 21, 2008, 11:38 pm 11:38 pm
Rhbate.
McBush? Running out of good material?
Posted by: Manitu | Jul 21, 2008 11:33:46 PM
_____________________
Seems that way!
Posted by: rhbate | July 21, 2008, 11:38 pm 11:38 pm
Is it a fiasco that a tyrant is destroyed, that a nation becomes a democracy, bad guys are defeated, that our butts are kept safe over here? Sorry you don’t agree.
Posted by: Manitu | Jul 21, 2008 11:38:11 PM
_____________________
The real fiasco is that over 4100 of our men and women are dead, that over 800,000 Iraqis are dead, that millions more are displaced, that a country has been destroyed and is worse off than before this unnecessary war. And worse, that the American people are worse off than before.
Posted by: rhbate | July 21, 2008, 11:42 pm 11:42 pm
McCain did not spit in the face of American soliers.
Posted by: Manitu | July 21, 2008, 11:47 pm 11:47 pm
Is it a fiasco that a tyrant is destroyed, that a nation becomes a democracy . . .
Posted by: Manitu | Jul 21, 2008 11:38:11 PM
________________
I wonder which nation you are referring to that became a “democracy.” Here in the US we have lost more rights, stooped to torture, wiretapped our own citizens, lost many of our Constitution rights. Less of a democracy than at any time in history.
Posted by: rhbate | July 21, 2008, 11:47 pm 11:47 pm
McCain did not spit in the face of American soliers.
Posted by: Manitu | Jul 21, 2008 11:47:09 PM
_________________
McCain is not the brightest bulb on the tree.
In justifying his position in Iraq, McCain said on the Today show this morning that there is a very dangerous situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border. Someone should have told him those borders are over 750 miles apart.
Posted by: rhbate | July 21, 2008, 11:49 pm 11:49 pm
Rhibate.
800,000? Source?
Posted by: Jimbo | July 21, 2008, 11:50 pm 11:50 pm
Is it a fiasco that a tyrant is destroyed,
Posted by: Manitu | Jul 21, 2008 11:23:33 PM
_______________
From my point of view, the real tyrant is still in office – in the US.
Posted by: rhbate | July 21, 2008, 11:53 pm 11:53 pm
Intelligent discussion? NITE
Posted by: Jimbo | July 21, 2008, 11:57 pm 11:57 pm
Rhbate.
PROFOUND!! NITE ALSO
Posted by: Jimbo | July 21, 2008, 11:59 pm 11:59 pm
PROFOUND!! NITE ALSO
Posted by: Jimbo | Jul 21, 2008 11:59:43 PM
_____________________
Nite, have a good one.
Posted by: rhbate | July 22, 2008, 12:04 am 12:04 am
Strange, I realy don’t know of anyone who has lost their rights nor freedoms, none of my friends do either. Hmmm……
Posted by: Temgami | July 22, 2008, 12:06 am 12:06 am
“Look for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and his allies to make the argument that the only reason Obama could be so stylish in Baghdad was because of McCain’s advocacy for the surge.”
And why shouldn’t he? He was the guy who was on the leading-edge of the “surge” advocacy, and the surge has clearly been nothing short of a success. I’m not a fan of McCain — I will likely vote for him, though — but why should he not promote a position on which he was obviously on the correct side and his opponent was was not?
Posted by: Bill | July 22, 2008, 12:24 am 12:24 am
Obama was wrong that the surge would make things worse.
Posted by: youii | Jul 22, 2008 12:36:33 AM
___________________
McCain was wrong, it was the invasion of Iraq that made things worse.
Posted by: rhbate | July 22, 2008, 12:52 am 12:52 am
I really can’t wait to hear how McCain responds to these photographs. BTW – Is Yogi Berra writing McCain’s speeches now?
A-ha-ha-ha.
Posted by: Gelada | July 22, 2008, 1:04 am 1:04 am
Why is he not wearing a body armor?
Cause he knows they won’t harm him. He is one of them?
Posted by: OneOfThem | July 22, 2008, 1:08 am 1:08 am
rhbate | Jul 22, 2008 1:03:50 AM
____-
not necessarily a Republican…. but I’m glad it wasn’t the “real” you.
Posted by: eyes wide open | July 22, 2008, 1:09 am 1:09 am
You people are either willfully ignorant or just racist. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Posted by: Gelada | July 22, 2008, 1:09 am 1:09 am
McCain ain’t able.
Posted by: rhbate | July 22, 2008, 1:11 am 1:11 am
rhbate | Jul 22, 2008 1:03:50 AM
____-
not necessarily a Republican…. but I’m glad it wasn’t the “real” you.
Posted by: eyes wide open | Jul 22, 2008 1:09:09 AM
___________________
Thanks, that makes two of us.
Posted by: rhbate | July 22, 2008, 1:13 am 1:13 am
The audacity of no armor….
Posted by: John Callis | July 22, 2008, 1:13 am 1:13 am
The world loves a weak U.S. President.
The world loves a know-nothing, all talk and no action President in the Oval Office … because that would mean more power to them.
The world loves to see an inept President in the White House.
So, if Obama is getting a warm welcome over there, does it say something?
The world would love to see Obama as President because they KNOW he is the weakest of the candidates for the job.
The world is a WHOLE LOT SMARTER than we, the dumb Americans.
We dont even know how to pick the best candidate we have as our President … Hillary was the best of the 3 candidates …
Posted by: WhatABunchOfDumbAmericans | July 22, 2008, 1:14 am 1:14 am
As one Republican said on FoxNews last week: It’s the approximately $500,000 each Captian hands out in his designated area that concerns me. If we leave and these Iraqis are not paid, they will instantly go back to the fighting we’ve had since we went into Iraq !”
He was talking about the money that has all but stopped being on reconstruction is now being handed out by thousands of Captains who are in charge of a few blocks or small parts of various Sectors in Iraq. They paid the local Cleric/StongMan/Bandit to not fight or in many cases actually help us maintain control.
Posted by: BretC | July 22, 2008, 1:40 am 1:40 am
Oh dear, McCain, it is time to give up the repetitive childlike, childish mantra. NOBODY IS LISTENING TO YOU ANYMORE!!!!! You are now stealing Hillary’s words about on-the-job training. McCain, didn’t you see wher it got her?
Right now McCain is trying his best to show up himself as a good Commander-in-Chief, but he just doesn’t have what it takes. John McCain is too much blustering, too much same old, same old wave of the hand, brushing off that will not advance his cause.
Why not talk about the 3.0 a.m. phone call. Would you be alert and ready for action if the phone rang at 3.00 a.m in the White House? Ahm – you know, truly, I don’t think so! Give it up! Obama is the right man for the job. This is the right time for Obama. He’s got what it takes to be Commander-in-Chief and America wants him. Oh, no! AMERICA NEEDS HIM, as does the rest of the world
I have my own conspiracy theory about what is going on right now regarding the apparent shift in the Bush Administration towards Obama’s international policy recommendations, but for now, I’d like to say, it is working and that’s OK! Is President Bush trying to increase his approval rating on Obama’s coat tail before leaving office? Is the Scretary of State using her powerful position? You go girl! John mcCain should realise that the current White Hose Staff from Top to Bottom does not want him to replace Pres. Bush, because it would be another four years of pure chaos for the country.
The world, and apparently, even the White House – can see that Obama is the right President for America at this time in its unfolding history. Perhaps there is a measure of myopia in some pockets of the country – GET OVER IT!
John McCain is already history He is an old man, a warrior, a war monger who talks tough, shakes his gun and drops off to sleep. Yet he wants to commit America to 100 years in Iraq. Who is listening and believing and liking what he touts like an old LP record stuck in a groove.
Posted by: exatlantic | July 22, 2008, 1:53 am 1:53 am
Obama attended an anti-war rally in 2002 and gave an anti-war speech to a bunch of anti-war protestors. No sticking his neck out there; this is textbook Obama just telling the crowd what they want to hear. When he began running for Senate, he was no longer talking anti-war and in fact, did nothing to try to end the war during his short time in the Senate. Judgment? No. Just catering to the crowd. Only someone with Obama’s arrogance would hang his entire campaign on a single speech of convenience.
Posted by: HoosierSue | July 22, 2008, 8:57 am 8:57 am
Oh come on. The answer is obvious. You can’t look “cool” in body armor.
Posted by: geevill | July 22, 2008, 10:45 am 10:45 am
Next up: what did Obama have for lunch in Iraq, and what does it mean about his character?
Seriously, this is some pretty vapid analysis. Who cares if he’s wearing body armor or not? LOL, we’re pouring taxpayer money into Iraq at an alarming rate, Americans and Iraqis are dying on two war fronts, a banking crises looms ominously, and ABCnews.com blithers about Obama’s wardrobe choices as he visits a war zone.
Pathetic.
Posted by: Subterra | July 22, 2008, 11:36 am 11:36 am
Come on they are not going to attack Obama he is one of the Terrorists best friends, with his anti-American speeches and his terrorist friends here at home!!
Posted by: spock | July 22, 2008, 12:15 pm 12:15 pm
Dumb Americans voted for George Bush. Dumb Americans will vote for McCain in 2008. “WhatABunchOfDumbAmericans” the world doesnt want a weak U.S. president.They want to him replaced by Barack Obama.
Posted by: TV | July 22, 2008, 1:06 pm 1:06 pm
In justifying his position in Iraq, McCain said on the Today show yesterday that there is a very dangerous situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border. Someone should have told him the Iraq border is 750 miles from the Pakistan border. Brain farrt, I guess. Or maybe just old age.
Posted by: rhbate | July 22, 2008, 1:06 pm 1:06 pm
McCain graduated from the US Naval Academy 894th in a class of 899. He wrecked five jets before they finally got rid of him. Obviously he is not the brightest bulb on the tree. He was shot down by an out-of-date Soviet missile by men with no experience in anti-aircraft warfare because he did not follow the rules of evasion taught at the Academy. Let’s just say the man has only one oar in the water.
He disses two in five people on the face of the earth by referring to all Asians as “Gooks.” He may be viewed as a “hero,” but I don’t think being shot down qualifies him for the job of president.
Posted by: rhbate | July 22, 2008, 1:07 pm 1:07 pm
I see McCain has not wasted any time campaigning negative
Posted by: InMyTummy | July 22, 2008, 8:00 pm 8:00 pm
Barry Obama is a clever idiot – he’ll say whatever he needs to say (a.k.a., lie) to win the Presidency. Unfit and naive.
Posted by: BP | July 22, 2008, 11:21 pm 11:21 pm