Obama Iraq Speech: US Strategy Is Unsound - Afghanistan is a war we must win

Sounds good to me.

Yes indeed, let's make a bozo look like a general...morons will buy it.
Just think, the votes of nitwits can elevate a no-count community activist void of integrity to the level of commanding the entire United States Military. That's like going to Chicago, finding a community activist and taking him to any military base in the country and putting him in charge...That defines insanity.
Most important, it is a nightmare and slap in the face for those busting their cans and risking their lives serving in Iraq and Afghanistan...The very countries the pompous community activist lends his critique and plans. He's trying his best to appear like he‘s an expert in the field...The reality of this charade is, it’s an Obamanation.

Dajokerman wrote:

Sounds good to me.

News for you...Anything sounds good to you. That's why you and your ilk stand for nothing and fall for anything.

Watching his speech now. Seems like a lot of dreams there?

Not to mention a lot of foreign aid $$$
A lot of domestic program money?

He also spoke about strenghtening the military
but in an earlier speech he discusses cutting military development programs (Future combat system).

I would like to be optomistic about either candidate, but unfortunately along with congress's actions I see more nothing really happening.

Messiah Obama can't be trusted as our Commander In Chief. He won't be getting my vote. Thank God I'm retiring from the Air Force in 3 weeks. I wouldn’t want Messiah Obama’s signature on my retirement certificate.

The war in Iraq is coming to a conclusion despite Obama's comments that "the US cannot win" in Iraq and his irresponsible calls to quit before allowing the gov to take root.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17624785

Obama has no clue and his judgment is hollow at best:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/obam...

Obama has been chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and has yet to hold any hearings on Iraq or Afghanistan.

Why?

Because he's too busy working fund raisers and campaigning for a post that is over his head.

Here is were I have my confusion and doubts

http://www.youtube.com/watch ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch ...

Somethings else that was brought up.
Obama already has a plan for Iraq and Afganistan
despite havig not been Iraq in 900 days and never in Afganistan and has not spoke to the commanders on the ground.

I'm sorry but that's one of the precepts for being Commander in Chief. To talk to and listen to you field commanders and troops before making decisions.

Sorry it cut off my videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

JohnInLa wrote:

Yes indeed, let's make a bozo look like a general...morons will buy it.
Just think, the votes of nitwits can elevate a no-count community activist void of integrity to the level of commanding the entire United States Military. That's like going to Chicago, finding a community activist and taking him to any military base in the country and putting him in charge...That defines insanity.
Most important, it is a nightmare and slap in the face for those busting their cans and risking their lives serving in Iraq and Afghanistan...The very countries the pompous community activist lends his critique and plans. He's trying his best to appear like he‘s an expert in the field...The reality of this charade is, it’s an Obamanation.

You're right. Take a look at this funny picture, it fits your first comment. Obama is nothing but a political animal, will say or do anything to win. Only thing is that he is incoherent.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2...

Dajokerman wrote:

Sounds good to me.

As subcommittee chairman, Obama could have held hearings pertaining to the role of NATO in the war in Afghanistan, but he has not.

At a Democratic debate in February, he said he "became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign," so the committee hadn't held such hearings.

But Obama has presided over subcommittee hearings to consider the nominations of ambassadors to several nations and the U.S. permanent representative to the NATO council. He also has previously spoken out about the role of NATO in Afghanistan, saying that he supports a greater presence of troops in the country.

As of June 3, the International Security Assistance Force estimates that there are nearly 53,000 troops representing 40 nations in Afghanistan. The U.S. has supplied roughly 24,000 of them.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_ob ...

Read it and weep.

Obama is a fraud.

Pursuing the 9/11 connected terrorists in Afganistan makes sense. Iraq never did make sense and never will as there is simply not enough spin in the universe to make that colossal strategic blunder work. Pre-emptive war is unjustifiable. The US invaded a soveign nation WITHOUT provocation. Feeling threatened by Saddam was not sufficient cause. There is no question of the need to end our involvement in Iraq-- even the Iraqi government want the US gone baby gone.

Obama was wrong on the surge; Obama is wrong on Iraq and Afghanistan. No Obama 08!

A-stan is a much worse place to fight a war than Iraq is.

Also it would take much more effort and time to fix it.

Pakistan is the ' Wild Card'.How to play it is the question. I don't know whether either candidate has a doable plan for dealing with P-stan.For instance, most of the supplies coming into A-stan to support NATO are trucked through P-stan.

A-stan is a land locked country stuck in the 1850s or such.It has a heck of alot less going for it than does Iraq.

Also I see Obama running into trouble with the Far Left when escalating things in A-stan.

What did you think of the speech? Register your thoughts at www.anti-obama.com . Best Anti-Obama site on the Internet!

JohnInLa wrote:

<quoted text>News for you...Anything sounds good to you. That's why you and your ilk stand for nothing and fall for anything.

Good day to you johnny, how is your dementia doing?

The laughing liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
As subcommittee chairman, Obama could have held hearings pertaining to the role of NATO in the war in Afghanistan, but he has not.
At a Democratic debate in February, he said he "became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign," so the committee hadn't held such hearings.
But Obama has presided over subcommittee hearings to consider the nominations of ambassadors to several nations and the U.S. permanent representative to the NATO council. He also has previously spoken out about the role of NATO in Afghanistan, saying that he supports a greater presence of troops in the country.
As of June 3, the International Security Assistance Force estimates that there are nearly 53,000 troops representing 40 nations in Afghanistan. The U.S. has supplied roughly 24,000 of them.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_ob ...
Read it and weep.
Obama is a fraud.

Subcommittee hearings are only held when the full committee is engaged with other matters. The subcommittee holds the hearings and reports to the full committee with recommendations. Subcommittee hearings are usually held at the request of the committee chair. What need has there been to hold hearings on NATO in Afghanistan? And what difference would it have made? McBush has fired every one of the military commanders who disagreed with him, and ridiculed every thing the Democrats tried to do for our troops and the Afghanistan effort. A general on the ground recently said that we needed 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan, but there were none to send.

There was an exchange between Webb and Graham on "MTP"
Webb:“You know, you haven’t been to Iraq Lindsey.(cross-talk).
You go see the dog and pony show. That’s what Congressman do.”

cross talk

Webb:“I’ve been a member of the military more than the Senators been
a Senator.”
Video and transcript at the link.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/15/jim-...

As a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Obama has sat through every hearing the Senate has had with Cocker and Petreaus. He has had access to classified information through that committee, and has been getting presidential level intelligence briefings since he became the nominee.
He recently announced he is going to Iraq.

Petreaus and Cocker have spent their time in DC wooing GOP reps, on the White House instructions. I doubt they would have bothered with Obama.

The Taliban is back in control of Afghanistan because the Greedy Old Pickpockets diverted our resources to their war for oil in Iraq. Obama wants to reverse the military, humanitarian and foreign policy disaster that Iraq has become and retake Afghanistan and capture Bin Laden.

And what does the GOP offer the country?

Mixed-up McCain is Still Confused-AQI Gaffe #5, 4/8/08

RUSSERT: The fact is you are different than George Bush.
SEN. McCAIN: No. No. The fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush
Here. Listen to McCain and decide for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

McCain forgets that Czechoslovakia isn’t a country… again (Third Time!)
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/14/mccain-fo...

Sorry, missed the link on the first video. Here it is:

Mixed-up McCain is Still Confused-AQI Gaffe #5, 4/8/08
www.youtube.com/watch...

Dubious at best wrote:

<quoted text>
Subcommittee hearings are only held when the full committee is engaged with other matters. The subcommittee holds the hearings and reports to the full committee with recommendations. Subcommittee hearings are usually held at the request of the committee chair.
What need has there been to hold hearings on NATO in Afghanistan?

And what difference would it have made?

McBush has fired every one of the military commanders who disagreed with him, and ridiculed every thing the Democrats tried to do for our troops and the Afghanistan effort.

A general on the ground recently said that we needed 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan, but there were none to send...

Obama had the chance to get direct information and to ask very direct questions of US commanders under the NATO umbrella.

He either was too busy for the opportunity, didn't want to come off like Harry Reid or was afraid of exposing ignorance.
Maybe all of the above.

More information always makes a difference when it comes to decision making. You don't understand that?

Dubious at best wrote:

Sorry, missed the link on the first video. Here it is:
Mixed-up McCain is Still Confused-AQI Gaffe #5, 4/8/08
www.youtube.com/watch...

Both are poor candidates.

Watch obama the blithering idiot at his own townhall meeting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Can't even complete a thought.

The laughing liberal wrote:

The war in Iraq is coming to a conclusion despite Obama's comments that "the US cannot win" in Iraq and his irresponsible calls to quit before allowing the gov to take root.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17624785
Obama has no clue and his judgment is hollow at best:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/obam...
Obama has been chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and has yet to hold any hearings on Iraq or Afghanistan.
Why?
Because he's too busy working fund raisers and campaigning for a post that is over his head.

Our president was/is way over his head too. I don't think Obama will do any worse.