Jul 23 2008

Obama Ignoring Advice From All Corners

Published by at 9:42 am under 2008 Elections,All General Discussions,Iraq

Reader Sally Vie pointed me to this Washington Post editorial which is noting the obvious – Obama is as oblivious to the opinions of world leaders and American leaders as he has been oblivious to the reality on the ground in Iraq:

THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of Barack Obama’s visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama’s own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq’s principal political leaders actually support his strategy.

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of the dramatic turnaround in U.S. fortunes, “does not want a timetable,” Mr. Obama reported with welcome candor during a news conference yesterday. In an interview with ABC, he explained that “there are deep concerns about . . . a timetable that doesn’t take into account what [American commanders] anticipate might be some sort of change in conditions.”

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki’s timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama’s. More significant, it would be “a timetable which Iraqis set” — not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki “wants some flexibility in terms of how that’s carried out.”

Is the junior senator from Illinois listening? Of course not, his ego has inflated so far his ears have been clogged and his mind has switched off. Obama is the epitome of the stubborn, bull-headed politician who will say anything without an ounce of candor or sincerity. He just wants all these nuisances (aka experts) to just shut up and follow his orders. America is noticing, and I expect Obama will actually see a drop in his support after his dismal road trip to the Middle East.

The Messiah is getting board with the masses.

37 responses so far

37 Responses to “Obama Ignoring Advice From All Corners”

  1. Terrye says:


    You are talking to me about partisan? Speaking of simplistic Obama can not give a coherent interview. He changes his views when it suits him, ignores history or rewrites it and does not have the kind of resume that can justify his huge ego.

    Right now he is doing his King of the World Tour, giving speeches in front of Nazi monuments and in general acting like a megalomaniac.

    I did not really like Hillary Clinton, but she did not creep me out the way Obama does.

    So while you write your looooooong posts and tell me how simplistic I am, keep in mind that I am not the one who is reducing an entire campaign to Yes We Can.

    And while it is true that there are all kinds of problem areas in the world, the idea that we can just walk away from Iraq with its strategic importance is the most simplistic and partisan attitude at all. And what is more, no one would have said that a decade ago. Back when the guy in the White House had a D behind his name no one doubted the need to deal with Saddam.

    So spare me the lectures. Unlike most Obama supporters I have actually read the Iraqi Liberation Act. The UN resolutions, including 1441, the force Resolution. I have read the Congressional Authorization of Force passed by the Congress. I have read the reports of the weapons inspectors about Saddam’s programs. I know about the 55 metric tons of yellow cake that was just shipped to Canada from Iraq where Saddam had kept it for the purpose of a future nuclear program. I have read the human rights reports of Saddam’s treatment of his own people for years. I have read the reports of Saddam’s support of terrorism for many years.

    That is probably more than Obama has done. He is too busy lying to people.

  2. Terrye says:

    And conman, the Iraqis do not want the troops to leave right now. I realize that it is a complicated concept, but the Iraqis want us to leave when they are ready to take control. That is what Times Horizon is all about. It is about condition ready. So when did I ever say that the Iraqis should not take control of their country? No one said otherwise.

    Obama said summer 2010…maybe. With an unspecified residual force left behind. Then the Iraqis said that would be fine if it were the last day of 2010 and if they were equipped to take over. Obama himself said that Maliki wanted flexibility. Now you can rewrite that to mean that Maliki wants to leave right now whether the Iraqis can fill the vacuum or not, but it would be a LIE. That is not what he said. And what is more, he willingly signed the agreement with Bush that does not give a date certain, but is moored to conditions.

    So I do not understand why it is if the socalled loyal opposition really wants to succeed in Iraq, they would ignore the Iraqis and the military people and demand that we stick to a rigid timeline when Obama himself has said, it will not be that rigid.

    and how do you know that he won’t leave half those troops there and call them a strike force. He refuses to answer the question of what size that force would be.

    No, you just want to run away and if it falls apart you could care less.

    And now all of sudden we have this overwhelming concern about Afghanistan from Obama and the Democrats. We were in Afghanistan for a year and a half before we went to Iraq, they did not say squat about troop numbers then. They did not even give a damn.

  3. Terrye says:

    In other wods conman, there is no way of knowing what Obama will do if he wins. He is not consistent, he is slippery, and he is self serving.

  4. Redteam says:

    CON-man, what an appropriate name.
    Dims are about to mess up their pants worrying that the war will be won before Obama gets a chance to surrender.
    whenever Obama speaks, look for the teleprompter in front of him or the earpiece in his ear. Even then he can’t keep his lies and flips straight. So much for the benefits of affirmative action.
    I love it that the Dims are whining about the Dims in congress supporting Bush (while talking against him) What do you think they’re gonna be doing when Obama continues to follow the Bush strategy. (assuming he can read the guidelines)

  5. conman says:


    I don’t know why you keep arguing about Iraq as though we are back in 2007. I agree that the Democrats strategy back in 2007 to simply leave Iraq when things were in chaos was not a sound strategy. I’ve never endorsed that position – EVER. I also agree that it is legitimate to press Obama about his judgment in endorsing that policy now that we have seen the improvements the surge has obtained. So there you have it – now you know where I stand and you can stop refuting arguments that I’ve never made.

    But were are not living in 2007 anymore. The security situation has vastly improved. The Iraqi government is telling us that they are willing and believe they will be able to take over the security by 2010 (stick to the facts – neither I nor anyone else has suggested that Maliki said he wanted us to leave “right now”). You should actually read the articles I posted – Maliki clearly said several times that he supports the withdrawal of US forces by the end of 2010 and he NEVER signed an agreement with Bush about time horizons. Sorry to inform you, but repeatedly saying that Maliki and Bush signed a phantom agreement will not make it a fact. While I don’t believe that we have achieved “victory” in Iraq because there are still many political and economic improvements that need to be made in order to ensure long-term stability, the US military has done all that it can. If the Iraqis cannot take the necessary steps to ensure long-term stability in the next 2 years, it will never happen. What else do you think our military needs to do? If the surge is such a success, why do you assume that if we left in the middle of 2010 (Obama’s timeline) or end of 2010 (Iraq’s timeline) Iraq would fall apart?

    As for Obama’s changing positions, are you really so naive to think that he is the only politician to have done that? News flash – they all do it, including McCain. Did you not know that before this election McCain was against Bush’s tax cuts, against Gitmo and the harsh interrogation techniques authorized by Bush, against off-shore drilling, against sending more US troops into Afghanistan? He flipped on all of these positions – and these are only a sample of the many positions he has changed. http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops. Unfortunately for the rest of us, it is a part of politics – they all do it no matter which party they are affiliated with. So yeah, Obama is inconsistent, slippery, self-serving and far from perfect – just like every single politician that has ever run for president.

  6. conman says:


    One other point about presidential candidates saying anything to get elected and changing their position when in office. Here is your hero Bush’s response to the question “How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally” asked during the 2000 election debates:

    “I don’t think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we’ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today’s military is too low. We’re having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we’re overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law.” http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html

    Let’s get an update on what Bush actually did. Bush has become the champion of nation building – calling it America’s duty to spread democracy throughout the world. Bush sent our troops into Iraq to fight a war without sufficient troop levels or equipment (or did you forget the infamous soldier who asked Rumsfeld why he had to dig through the trash to find material to deal with the IEDs?). Morale in the miltiary is low and we continue to struggle meeting recruitment goals. Bush opposed the proposed 3.5% pay hike for military personnel in 2007 and 2008 because he thought it was too much. Our own military leaders are saying that we are over-extended and our current military readiness is at one of the lowest levels in modern history.

    But I guess it was okay for Bush to change his position on an important policy issue, right? Too funny!

  7. VinceP1974 says:

    conman: Let me be one of the few people you “know” who think Obama’s trip is laughingstock farce.

    This guy is so out of his depth.. teh reporters have only just begun to rip him apart.

  8. VinceP1974 says:

    Terryeon 23 Jul 2008 at 8:46 pm
    In other wods conman, there is no way of knowing what Obama will do if he wins. He is not consistent, he is slippery, and he is self serving.

    We know exactly what he’s going to do… who did he surround himself with in Chicago? Radical Marxists.

    Who did he marry? Radical Marxist

    What mutation of Christianaity does he adhere to? Radical Racist Marxist

    In what motiff are his campaign posters? Marxist.

  9. VinceP1974 says:

    Seditious traitors like conman are moral cowards. I wouldn’t waste the time to write more than one paragraph to him. It would be more effective to spend time studying nuclear medicne with the floor mat protecting my carpet.

  10. Terrye says:


    A little thing called 9/11 took place following that campaign in 2000. And for some of us it was important enough to change attitudes. For others it was a speedbump.

    I put you in the speedbump category.

    Obama creeps me out. He does not know the difference between Veterans Day and Memorial Day. He is confused as to how many states there are in the union. He does not even know that Kentucky borders his own state of Illinois. That is how he explained getting trounced in Ky by Hillary: they know her better because she is from a border state like Ark. Look at a map and ask yourself how that man could have said something that stupid. He talks about invading Pakistan as if it were a mere detail on the one hand while he is ready and willing to sit down and have dinner with the mad mullahs on the other.

    In Israel he claimed he was on the Banking Committee, which he is not. Now I realize that he has only been in the Senate for about 3 years and has spent most of that time running for president, but you would think he would know what committees he serves on. He also got yelled at while he was there: Jerusalem is not for sale Obama.

    His people are passing out fancy flyers in German with his weird little emblem on them so that screaming fans can show up in a mob and chant his name in a foreign freaking country in the middle of an American political campaign.

    Tell me when he comes up with his huge domestic security force will they be wearing little badges or arm bands with that weird ass emblem of his on them? I am telling you conman I do not think this man is qualified for this office. He is a pandering manipulative con artist and this is not about partisan politics either.

  11. Terrye says:

    And conman I do not know one single person who has said they will vote for Obama. I have not seen one sign, one bumper sticker nor have I heard anyone say they think this grand tour of his is anything other than a road show.

  12. Terrye says:

    And then there is hubris:

    It is not going to be a political speech,” said a senior foreign policy adviser, who spoke to reporters on background. “When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.

    “But he is not president of the United States,” a reporter reminded the adviser.

    “He is going to talk about the issues as an individual … not as a candidate, but as an individual, as a senator,” the adviser added.

  13. Terrye says:

    It is more like beatlemania than a presidential campaign.

  14. Redteam says:

    Don’t it just make a thrill run up your leg?

  15. Ray_in_Aus says:

    People everywhere seem to think that if a person can give good speeches and win votes that they could make a good President or Prime Minister, but how many people have the intelligence, demeanor, nerve or the skills to do jobs like that properly?

    I think leaders should have some sort of history of leading or getting jobs done – by having brought together people who actually know what’s going on AND who had their respect for attempting to find good solutions – while bearing in mind the constraints of any over-riding policy or national traditions.

    Does Obama have any history like that? Do Democrat politicians even like him? Do they see him as a potential problem solver, or do they just see him as a ticket into power because of the anti-female vote and the pro-Black/minorities vote?

    It’s making me wonder – who HAS shown some outstanding leadership characteristics, within a political party or anywhere else.

  16. VinceP1974 says:

    Finally something I can agree with Ray on.

    People everywhere seem to think that if a person can give good speeches and win votes that they could make a good President or Prime Minister

    I agree with you. It’s something I’ll never understand.. What is so significant that a person can stand in front of a group of fanboys and recite a monologue that someone else wrote.

    I ask Lefties all the time.. how can you even support Obama.. you have to know he is not sincere in anything he says and his speeches are just designed to tell you what you want to hear. To which they reply with “You’re a racist bigot”

  17. Ray_in_Aus says:

    Some people ARE very racist and also bigoted. It doesn’t mean they’re nasty – just ignorant. It’s quite ridiculous to dislike or hate a group that one knows virtually nothing about.

    It’s a different story if we are actually “judging” but “pre-judging” (prejudice) is crazy — and as we’ve seen on the internet, lots of people are quite crazy.

    It’s not prejudice to judge someone because they deliberately talk arse-up and mangle the local language, and it’s not prejudice to dislike a group who have demonstrated an intention to dismantle and re-construct the local culture.

    If people want to judge someone by what they’ve actually done – fair enough, but to judge Obama as some sort of Black “outsider” in your country is nonsense. He was brought up totally White and had to LEARN how to be Black. He hasn’t even managed that properly because he’s too White to succeed.