Instead, the top Democratic contender for the nomination, on Sunday urged graduates of Wesleyan University to devote their lives to “collective service”. In his Marxist speech, he praised non-profit activities while never once mentioning the fact that the private sector is where jobs are born and where the economy grows. Even worse, he did not mention the military as a way to serve one’s country. Instead, he said, "our individual salvation depends on collective salvation.”
Barack Obama’s arrogance and refusal to even meet with a couple of dozen Iraq War vets, let alone the Commander in Iraq is a slap in the face to all who have sacrificed to keep our nation safe. Instead, he wants to meet with our enemies, people like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — or does he? He’s so busy changing position on that issue he’s become a refreshing breath of hot air, flapping in the warm late May heat, stirring the breezes near those around him like an impotent paper fan.
Once a person is able to get beyond the flowery rhetoric of change, we learn from Barack Obama’s website that he is the only candidate who wants tough, direct presidential diplomacy with that rogue nation. He wants a Kennedy–Khrushchev moment, once again ignoring a subject that is not exactly his strong suit, history. The meeting between those two men taught the Soviet leader that Kennedy was weak, ergo the Cuban Missile Crisis. Unfortunately, Obama doesn’t want to afford our commanding general or our troops the same respect. Strange, isn’t it?
A campaign spokesman denounced the proposal first made by Senator Graham and then seconded by Senator McCain as a cheap political stunt. According to RNC Chairman Mike Duncan, “Obama has done shockingly little to educate himself firsthand about the war in Iraq. Instead, he displays an arrogant certainty gained on the campaign trail. … Obama’s failure to visit Iraq, listen and learn firsthand and witness the surge’s progress demonstrates weak leadership that disqualifies him from being commander in chief…”
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Lee Richards
But I hear he's stopped beating his wife.
2 - Joanne Huspek
Barack's supposed "foreign policy" is what scares me most about him as a possible president, *dodging pellets* and as an independent, I did my best to give him a chance.
3 - Deano
It's fundamentally political.
Obama wants to keep his hands resolutely clean of having to address the reality of Afghanistan and Iraq, that way he can maintain his posturing about how he will provide a solution on how to get out of the mess that Bush et al have left America with.
Actually visiting Iraq or Afghanistan just makes things harder because he knows the impracticality at this point of any rapid pull-out, he knows that the Democrats call for bringing the troops home is mostly windy political rhetoric designed to leverage the anti-war, anti-Bush sentiment.
How far do you think he would get if he acknowledged the reality of the situation - namely that the US is stuck in both countries for probably a minimum of 5 more years before they will have developed enough internal stability to manage on their own. You might be able to begin some guarded and small re-deployments in another year or so, contingient on the success of the current COIN operations, but you are still going to have a significant troop presence for at least another 2 to 3 years, if not longer.
Obama's not stupid. Getting himself tarred with having to elucidate a real foreign policy strategy around Afghanistan or Iraq at this point would be politically foolish. he is best suited to sit and point at the mess the Republicans have created and say - "i didn't make, and I'll clean it up, and it won't happen again". That gets votes.
McCain, who is a bit more honest around the Iraq debacle (although he fails to lay blame squarely or admit to the faults in the current approaches) doesn't get any advantage from not addressing the elephant sitting in the room, so he speaks to it, often and regularly.
I honestly don't think it is lack of historical acuman or bravery or anything else that is keeping Obama out of Iraq or Afghanistan - it is that there is no real political upside to understanding it in any more depth.
4 - bliffle
How many times did Bush visit Iraq before he declared war?
5 - Matthew T. Sussman
Excellent point, Bliffle. I'll be sure not to vote for Bush in 2008.
6 - Dr Dreadful
Constitutional question: If one were to write in Bush's name for President in 2008, would one's ballot not be counted because he's ineligible for the Presidency?
7 - Brad Schader
#6- I believe their ballot would count for all other votes, but not for President. The Constitution allows for one to be elected to two terms or serve 10 years. Since Bush has been elected twice (really once to the Floridians, but he did serve two terms), he cannot therefore take the extra two years.
My personal belief is this is the path McCain is going to take. He is going to (if elected) resign after two years which would set up his VP to have a 10 year term as President.
8 - Clavos
My personal belief is this is the path McCain is going to take. He is going to (if elected) resign after two years which would set up his VP to have a 10 year term as President.
Why do you think that; what evidence points in that direction?
And whom do you think he'll select as veep?
9 - Dave Nalle
He'd have to be awfully confident in his VP for that to be his plan. There are only a few people he seems to trust that much, Lindsey Graham being one who comes to mind.
I think Graham would be a terrible VP choice since he's too similar to McCain in the wrong ways.
Dave
10 - Brad Schader
I have no idea who McCain is going to pick and that is going to be the deciding factor in my theory. It is basically just an idea I have bouncing about in the back of my head. McCain certainly cannot serve two terms at his age, but why does everyone assume is can even finish one? I think most of the support he does have is based on the belief that he cannot finish his term.
11 - Ruvy
Brad, that's an interesting theory you have there. But why should the old geezer risk his health for a mere two years in office presiding over the fall of the United States?
He should at least accrue enough time (and therefore enough money in a Bahama's bank account) so that a plane can take him off to retire to - Haiti.
12 - Brad Schader
He is risking his health already. I do not think that was his plan to start, nor do I think he is really planning it right now. I am just making a guess on what I think will happen. The GOP hated this man, yet he won the nomination. Why? I tend to think it is because they don't think he will make it a full four years. He will not die in office, but rather resign due to "health concerns." Of course, I also believed Cheney would have done the same by now to set up a real 2009 candidate and that didn't happen.
13 - Ellen
Why is Obama willing to meet with Ahmadinejad but not with my neighbor Joe, who plays Santa Claus every Christmas?
14 - bliffle
Is the point of this article that more discretion must be employed before terminating a misbegotten war than was employed before starting that war?
15 - Baronius
Hey, Obama doesn't meet with the press because they might make him look bad. There's no way he's going to get cornered into an Iraq road trip with McCain. But what a buddy comedy it would be!
16 - Dr Dreadful
The GOP hated this man, yet he won the nomination. Why? I tend to think it is because they don't think he will make it a full four years.
No, Brad, the GOP doesn't hate McCain - just a section of its very vocal right-wing side.
This time, that vocal minority didn't get their way, so after a brief period of sulking ("Stay at home in November rather than vote for McCain"... "Over my dead body"... "Write in Mitt Romney"... "Mutter mumble grumble gripe whinge"), they've mostly gotten over it and accepted that he's going to be the nominee so if they want another Republican in the White House they'd better get behind him.
Of course if he loses they'll throw him to the lions again.
17 - Arch Conservative
"My personal belief is this is the path McCain is going to take. He is going to (if elected) resign after two years which would set up his VP to have a 10 year term as President."
If Mccain were to pick Jindaal, who is only thirty siux years old, and then retire or take a fatl fall down a flight of stairs just two years in, would the age requirement for president prohibit jindal from becomingour nation's youngest president?
I used to think I wouldn't vote for Mccain unless he picked Romney but the more I learn about Jindall the more impressed I am.
Mccain picking the following as his VP will ensure he does not get my vote...
Crist
Pawlenty
Palin
Huckabee
Lieberman (not evn Mccain could be that stupid and arrogant)
18 - Dr Dreadful
To answer the question in the article's title:
Maybe Petraeus has bad breath.
19 - bliffle
If (or when) Obama is elected president, Petraeus will support whatever policies Obama espouses. If Obama says Kill The Infidels, then Petraeus will kill the infidels. If Obama says 'get the troops out', then Petraeus will Get The Troops Out.
Petraeus has never defied a superior in his entire career. He's never met a superior he didn't like (or worship).
Petraeus is a good soldier: he'll do what he's told. As always.
20 - bliffle
Is the point of this article that more discretion must be employed before terminating a misbegotten war than was employed before starting that war?
21 - Clavos
Of course if he loses they'll throw him to the lions again.
And why not? Losers are...well, losers.
22 - Ruvy
If Mccain were to pick Jindaal, who is only thirty siux years old, and then retire or take a fatl fall down a flight of stairs just two years in, would the age requirement for president prohibit jindal from becomingour nation's youngest president?
I see that nobody had the kindness to answer Bing's question. If this Jindaal fellow is over the age of 35, he can serve as president of your country.
Shabbat Shalom,
23 - Matthew T. Sussman
"Mccain picking the following as his VP will ensure he does not get my vote...
...
Palin"
Why do you hate MILFs?
24 - Lumpy
To go back to the original question, the reason Obama hates and fears Petraeus more than Ahmagonastartajihad is that tranzi socialists see the militaries of strong and sovereign nations as a bigger threat to their global interests than terrorists are. In fact they see terrorists as useful tools to hammer sovereign nations into becoming suitable subservient.
25 - bliffle
Nobody who commands Petraeus will worry, hate or fear him. His well-known record has always been that he doesn't struggle with superiors. Like Condy Rice.He'll just carry out orders whatever they are, making sure he keeps his own skirts clean.