Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 8

• 0%

  TheVisionary3 months ago

  "It's not how many times you visit the country, but rather what kind of information you gleam from your time there and elsewhere.

  'For Senator McCain, I think we should remember that: a) young American soldiers aren't going to meet John McCain and tell him: Iraq is totally ******, get us out of here. It's John McCain! He's a war hero! It would be like admitting you failed to your grandfather,' Newsweek's Michael Hastings, author of 'I Lost My Love In Baghdad: A Modern War Story,' told The Huffington Post. 'I talked to Senator Obama when he visited in 2006. He did something that was quite interesting: after a press conference at the U.S. Embassy in the Green Zone, he sat down with reporters after for a private, off the record conversation. It was his idea. He asked us: Okay, what's really going on here? What followed was a pretty candid discussion among the press and BHO. It was certainly a slick move on his part; making the press feel important can never hurt.'"

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    TemplarScribe3 months ago

    FTA: "(T)he argument ignores the glaring fact that McCain is surrounded by like-minded individuals who support the war and have traveled to Iraq just as infrequently as Obama. Some of these figures... seem poised to play major roles both in McCain's run for the White House."

    "Beyond Giuliani, there is Mitt Romney, who... is on the shortlist of VP choices (and) who could very well end up a heartbeat away from the presidency, has been to Iraq just once; in May 2006, he made a surprise trip to Baghdad... and warned against a "cut and run" pullout from the war-torn country. Florida Gov. Charlie Christ... a member of McCain's theoretical VP list, has never visited Iraq, his office confirmed."

    There are few places for McCain's negative tactics to affect Obama's increasing lead in the polls. Attacking a Senator for not traveling overseas, following a Bush presidency where he travelled less than any president in recent history, is ironic, if not disingenuous.

    Reply
• 0%

  aniokly3 months ago

  Visiting the war zone may seem irrelevant to Sen Obama, but I would think anyone who wants to be the Commander in Chief would visit the troops. I know he didn't serve, but if he wants their votes he might want to at least go shake their hands.But then he would lose the support of all his anti-American radical friends, Rashid Khalidi, William Ayers, and Bernadine Dohrn, the Rev Wright, and flaky Father Pfleger. And this guy wants to be President of the U S,

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    TemplarScribe3 months ago

    Correction: this man WILL be president.

    And he won't get us into a never-ending war, over the claims "He tried to kill my daddy." That was Bush's quote on why he was attacking Saddam's country. How "informed" was that comment? And yes, I'm well aware of Saddam's botched attack on Bush Sr. That just proves how badly Iraq carried out terrorist attacks under Saddam's rule.

    And please, Ani, enough with the rogues gallery of supposed Obama connections. It's old news, it's innacurate, and no one pays attention to that nonsense. It doesn't influence anyone to back McCain; it only serves to prove how out of touch and vitriolic (like that word?) your POV is.

    Wake up and smell history being made.

    Reply
• 0%

  JoseMadre3 months ago

  So basically Ari "I Turned My Husband Gay" Huff-n-Puff is saying that McCain's info is bad because the many troops he met were all lying to him, but the small sample that agrees with Obama are the truth tellers? Got it. Set the parameters so that you are always right. No wonder I hate that witch. At least leftists like Maher have the integrity to look at the facts.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    TemplarScribe3 months ago

    Jose, why is it that when you meet someone who disagrees with you, you have to label them? "Leftists"? "Huff-n'Puff"? Are these Rush-inspired talking points that I somehow missed?

    Look at the number of senior and midlevel officers who left Iraq because they disagreed with the way the war was being run. Start with General Shinsecki. Then look at the serious decline in reenlistments, forcing the Army and Marines to institute the infamous stop-loss procedures. Then look at the number of Iraqi vets who are running for office as Democrats.

    There's plenty of reality checks there, Jose. Just open your eyes.

    BTW: I remember someone else a few years ago who claimed all was going great in Iraq, that the opposition was simply "dead enders," and that "victory was in reach." And that the "liberal media" was distorting the truth.

    His name was Donald Rumsfeld. And he was just as wrong then as McCain is now.

    Reply
• 0%

  nostalgia3 months ago

  It;s not just his obvious lack of interst in seeing for himself what is going on in Iraq. He didn't even bother to meet with General Petraeus

  His lack of interest in foreign policy is astonishing

  Obama chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs and hasn't even bothered to hold a single hearing

  Considering that NATO is so involved in Afghanistan, you would think he would at least try and show some interest

  I don't think he has even bothered to visit Europe since he was named chairman of the committee

  Reply
• 0%

  aniokly3 months ago

  Sen Obama will not be elected President in November, because being the Commander in Chief is a serious part of being President, and he has no clue being C in C, or about National Security. In a perfect world that would not be a problem, but this is not a perfect world. We need someone who loves this country enough to fight for her.

  Reply