Political Punch

Wowzer,
Seems to me some dont get the picture. This is not "a math game". Nobody is God, so stop thinking you can pull out troops, when in fact, we have no clue what will take place in Iraq, no more than we do Afghanistan. Look at Afghanistan now people!! We need more troops there. To the smarty pants that wants to be a math teacher and think you can come up with a reason to mathematically withdraw troops,well, lets just say,You have no idea on what may happen from 1 moment to the next there, yes I mean -moment-, and it takes a long time to have only 1 brigade withdrawn from there, it is a DANGEROUS place to LEAVE, and I mean just to leave.I for 1, took my last injuries leaving that country, and many of our soldiers killed leaving there. Wake up, as this is "a war", not some little x-box game or math quiz! You cannot predict the future and obviously Al-Qaida has been reforming some stronger ways to use against not only us, but their own people, and any country that does NOT believe in THEIR ways. Before you go thinking this is some type of a way to take a few brigades and divide them up and bring so many home within a certain amount of time, remember each MOMENT, not day, but MOMENT that ANYTHING could happen there, as well as many other places. This has been my whole point with Obama, and anyone else that thinks they can give timetables.You can NOT give a time table.

To get a clearer picture of Obama go to his church's website and view the basic tenents of his church and Rev Wright. Then follow up on Rev Wrights comments on black liberation theology by doing a web search. Look at them all....don't cherry pick.

"Power and Keane are two smart people giving their own opinions about what Obama and Clinton might do.

And they're both probably shooting a lot straighter than either of the candidates, who are trying to appease voters who want US troops out of Iraq yesterday."

Dear JPT:

You missed a fundmental and already stated difference: Mrs. Clinton didn't promise she will get all troops out immeidately, she said there is a US interest for some troops to defend in Iraq. Obama had proudly promised a 16 months timeframe, made it a big core deal of his campaig, and accused Clinton not to have a hard exit. So what is the contradiction between Keane and Clinton here?

Well, we all know that once you are in a situation/position, you assess the needs and best approach of that particular time.

We Regular People do that in our Regular Lives.

Most certainly the President evaluates matters such as withdrawal of troops as to what is happening during that particular time frame.

Nothing is exact . . .

As Samantha Powers, who called Hillary Clinton “a monster,” the disgraced Mr. Obama's foreign policy expert also told BBC, Mr. Obama has no hard and fast policy about withdrawing from Iraq, that it may change, depending, we don't know what; although Mr. Obama has been telling a very different story, if you listen to him speak. Just like his economic adviser Mr. Goodsbee said to the Canadian officials a very different story about NAFTA. Mr. Obama's campaign is full of fictions, confabulations, contradictions, confusions and populated of people who are learning on the job just like Mr. Obama is going to do as president. Can we really afford this sort of amateurism?

Hillary will pull out of Iraq as soon as possible in a planned, methodical way, after taking all factors into consideration. She has the experience and knowledge to get the job done. Obama just doesn't have the experience or knowledge in foreign policy. He should not make campaign promises he probably cannot keep.

Nobody knows what Obama will do including Obama. If he doesn't keep his promises he will give a good tele - evangelistic speech and proclaim that all is well.

I think Clinton knows she cannot pull out massive amounts of troops at once, and she has said that after 60 days of assuming office she will begin pulling out 1 platoon per month. So this is maximum 40 soldiers per month, and it is to her credit and wisdom that she has never promised a hard date for pulling out all troops. She is very much more aware of the differences in history, culture, and mentality of the society inside of Iraq. This is very naive on Obama's part, as if he annuonces a hard date there will be Al Qaeda lying in the weeds making their own plans for that date. Also he has recentlty criticised the current Iraqi government for their lack of initiative to take over their own country and insteqd rely on the US, as if they do it on purpose. This also shows his naivty for the culture and conditions of Iraq, making it sound as if it is so simple to move out. I am not a Clintonite or an Obama hater, actually a Republican that is considering to vote Democrat this time. I will never vote for Obama because he is too naive and inexperienced. So as someone who is more objective, I myself have been puzzled at the support Obama has received and wondered why Hillary did not attack him and make a bigger issue long ago about his lack of experience. I do not think it is 'going negative' to place an ad questioning his experience and ability to be commander in cheif. I question it and I do not think it is negative to put the same question into the minds of others. While I do think he is getting softballed by the media, I do not listen to the media or Hillary Clinton to form my opinion. I downloaded and analyzed both Clinton and Obama's entire voting record from congress.org Obama has a 34% 'not voting' record in 3 years as a US senator. When he is voting, his votes on many issues such as Iraq, healthcare, immigration, veterans are the opposite of what he speaks. I am sorry I just see that he is irresponsible, and to me seems like he wants the title and fringe benefits that go along with the title. He does not especially inspire me when I listen to him. I think he sounds like a televangelist. He is just as much 'old washington' politics, and even more so, but even if he wasn't, he will be a lone sheep amongst all of the wolves, and so I am not sure that he is the Messiah that will save Washington. He needs to get over himself and wait until he is ready. So for me it is either Hillary or McCain.

For all the Hillary and Obama lovers. you CAN NOT just start pulling troops from Iraq. It doesn't work that way. If anyone was truly interested in the PROGRESS that is being made in the Middle East you would take the time to listen to the SOLDIERS. Not politicians.
My brother has served in two wars is a decorated war hero and is still has shrapnel in his body from his time in Iraq. He has served this nation for 22 years and continues to serve. DO NOT believe the media hype. Listen to what your soldiers are saying.

If you must consider the views of the international community, I believe that Hillary has this war stance- America first, policy position that simply makes America the world's enemy. We've had enough of presidents which make America seem like a psychophantic killer on a rampage. The time has come for America to choose hope...not only for their sakes but also for the sake of the rest of the world

The person who could best run this country would never carry a district-J.F.K. said that,it has never been more true Tell them what they want to hear.
Hilary says she will end our need for foreign oil/yeah by grinding the economy to a halt

About the only politician you could trust to get us out of the mideast is Ron Paul and you see what the political machines , defense/war industry and establishment press did to him.

McCain was a prisoner and patriot but all that did was apparently make him a bit unstable and harbor a desire to crush his enemies (Nuke Nam?) and the thought of endless oil wars seems to suit him just fine.

Obama is another sweet talking would be socialist dictator (now you can see how Hitler mesmerized citizens) who plays on race only slightly less than Clinton.

Clinton is a good old boy socialist politician who wants power again and like Obama, will say (and do) whatever it takes to be crowned.

The powers that be control the political and election process (he who counts the vote decides the winner) and the government has been taken over and the Constitution is nothing more than toliet paper to them.

It will take more than words to take the country back from the socialist/Fascists wolves who wear the Red White & blue.
Course the govt' schools have brain washed the majority so little resistance is had from the sheep and the govt' mouthpiece press has not helped the cause of freedom here or abroad or course.

All to soon we will all pay for the sins of the powers that be while the oil turns red and the world uses the dollar for toilet tissue and citizens are told to eat cake.

The dream of the revolution lives on.

Hilary can't keep her own house straight,(cheating husband), Obama is young, and Cain may still be suffering from being a p.o.w. But the one thing about this war is that as long as I've been alive the middle east has never been stable. We make little deals here and there or flex a little muscle to keep that almighty oil flowing this way. This war is no different. Now we just have a good cover as to why we're there. Meanwhile, our country suffers at home, unemployment,unhunger, crime, homeless, etc. Keep it up and we'll have our own third country right here before long. Another observation to look at is that in WW 1 & WW2 the countries we help there helped us to help them. They didn't just sit back and watch us die day in and day out. The reality is that no matter how much we help someone out there, there is always people that don't like us. The middle east has been at war of some kind for centuries. Why do we think that suddenly we're going to change that? Ego?? Also to our troops, keep your spirits up but also remember, you swore to protect our freedom not someone elses. Where are their young men and women to help with this fight? I am a navy vet and have family there in deeper than may ever know, I believe in helping the unfornate but I do NOT do it at the cost of our country, because when this country needs REAL help, who's going to help the U.S.?

Helllllooooooo America !!
Wake up please! I myself served the nasty imminent danger area of the Diyala Region of Iraq 2004(under "THE BIG RED 1")HOOAH! GREAT..Now to get to the seriousness of all the debate on the subject & more..If you have not served there (or any other war) than 1st off I feel, you should NOT be running this country period.
I don't care if you served stateside or overseas.My point is simple.If you do not knnow from experience, than you do not know and therefore have no right to make a judgement upon what we should do,how it is,how it should be or bring the boys home!! Haha..That line really cracks me up, when we had & have thousands of wonderful females,serving as we do just like other races.
I do not care who you are, and most of us do not care, when serving next to you, if you are of male or female or purple, black, white,yellow or what color or what branch of the Armed forces. We are NOT ONLY in Iraq,we are in over 100 other countries.Wow-a wake up for some eh?
If you would wake up each morning (no matter what country you live in)& realize the true facts:"WE ARE FIGHTING TERRORISM", NOT Iraq & Afghanistan!! You are not God,dont make false statements of what you plan to do or will do as Clinton & Obama do.
They cannot make any commitments to withdraw or do anything else on the war on terrorism no matter where it is fought and if it entails withdrawal of troops, or sending more in.Why? Oh come on, we cannot predict the future, just as we could not predict the day of 9/11. Oh, did that one hit home? It should!
So, thank your vets each day, and yes, to include John McCain (he DOES know and stands strongly on his beliefs and his "wisdom & experience" as a veteran),so who is best fit to include the Boeing problem? McCain is. He caught the bad guys doing wrong and did you forget that it in no way shape or form has hurt the taxpayers with the big billlions it "would have", IF they were NOT caught.
So, yeppers, blame McCain, is all they say, when in fact, if McCain had not stopped it, you may not be able to feed your family right now,due to the taxes it would have cost taxpayers.
Oh, and while we are on the subject of who is the best candidate; why do we not remember who else must have enough experience, and wisdom to control things when they do get out of hand for national or international disasters. Hope you lay down tonight peacefully and think about that really in depth.I served for your right for fredom as all my sister and brother in arms have and our forefathers of the past, so you have the right to speak your opinion as do I, and I will respect such, but when you cnanot speak the words without the knowledge,then maybe some should rethink their remarks and promises that cannot be kept, because the future is not here yet.
How about "I will vote, for the one who has the wisdom, experience, & the knowledge", and also for the taxpayers, and the many other things that have all been proven through experience.

Barack Obama plans to "remove one to two combat brigades per month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq in 16 months." Some troops will be kept to protect our embassy and diplomates. If al-Queda builds a base within Iraq, he will keep some troops in Iraq or nearby to deal with that. For argument's sake, let's go with two per month.

According to wikipedia, as of Dec. 2007 we have "around 154,000 troops" deployed in Iraq, and this latest number reflects the additional troops sent as part of the surge plan. It goes on to note that "an additional 30,000 troops are deployed in the Gulf region."

Generally, an army brigade consists of 3,000-5,000 troops. For argument's sake, let's just call it 4,000.

So, let me get out my slide rule and do the math: 154K/8K=19mos+1wk. So, if he leaves (3.25*4K=) 13K troops in place, he'll be about on target. That should be enough to protect our embassy and personel, and give the Iraqis something to shoot at on a clear day.

But, we all know what's going to happen no matter who is elected President. Congress is going to turn it into a three ring circus and decide for themselves what the draw-down should be anyway. It's happened before, and so far, it's politics as usual.

I have know doubt in my mind that McCain would be the wiser choice of the three leading candidates. The man is a former navy fighter pilot who spent quite a bit of time as a POW in the Vietnam war. So he is no stranger to warfare and to go through all that misfortune proves to me that he loves this country and wants to make things better for us. He also has over 30 years of experience in politics to offer as a candidate(much more than obama). He lets it be known that there is no feasible way to pull us troops out anytime soon. that would, in fact, make things worse. Iraq would be in turmoil. He doesnt say one thing and then turn around and say another-like hilary and obama on troop withdrawals. all you people are out of your mind to think that we can just pull out and end this right now. there is way too much to take care of that the american public in general is naive of. and yes of course troops are dying in Iraq...hello its a war! nobody forced me or any other troop to sign the contract; we signed it of our own accord. to pull us out now would mean to me that my friends and brothers died for no reason and that a country went through a great ordeal just to be denied its sovereignty and handed over to terrorist organizations to take control of and plot the next 9-11. wake up people, we cannot just be isolated anymore, foreign policy is a must. Do not forgot what has happened in the past: 9-11-2001, 12-7-1941.

i would also like to state that i would be proud and honored to serve under John McCain as commander in chief.

People bash Hillary without understanding what she has said. At the first debate Hillary was the only person to say that you can't just pull all the troops out of Iraq. We have interests that must be protected.

She has asked for a detailed plan on removing our troops and it has not been made ready. Her plan is to give the joint chiefs 60 days to prepare a plan, then decide how to execute it.

It's exactly why she is ready to lead from day one. She's the only person on the first debate to get this question right.

As a Canadian I am embarassed and mortified at the interference of some of my fellow citizens and government officials in the US elections process. Even if the claims about Obama were true, and they are not, it would still have been wrong to make any public comment. One thing democratic countries do not do is involve themselves in their neighbour's internal business. At least my government has issued an official apology to Senator Obama and his campaign, and so it should.

While NAFTA is an international treaty we have both signed, it does contain cancellation clauses with notice. If a future US government wanted to invoke that option if the treaty was not renegotiated, then Canada would look at that and consider our response at the time. As is the case in the United States, our own experience with NAFTA has been mixed, with some businesses and industries benefitting heavily, others seeing little or no change, and still others hurting because of the deal. Certainly, not all Canadians are supporters of NAFTA in its present form.

However, all that is for the future...

If you watch this clip from the oldest and most venerated Cdn. TV networks, you will see that Obama's explanation was substantiated.

Unlike the American press who do not make the distinction that the Cdn. Consulate in Chicago approached a Professor of Economics for a meeting, the Canadians have.

The Globe & Mail in Canada has QUOTED Harper's top aide as stating that it was the Clinton campaign who called to reassure the Cdn. gov't.

MEMOgate, as the Canadians might call it, won't be going away any time soon.

I checked out the Bloomberg piece, Jake and it doesn't say much of anything; much less prove anything.

Senator Obama has always said that he will surround himself with people who may not always agree with him but he will listen.

Most academics are proud of their own area of expertise and may be a bit naive about newspapers or media that ask them to get together for one thing (Powers was/is on a book tour in England).

In my opinion, regarding Iraq, her answer was a feasible and educated one. How can one declaratively answer a hypothetical, future tense without sounding ridiculous?

It might have been better had she pulled out a crystal ball and waved her hands over it.

Whoever wins the White House will have a vastly different Iraq than we have now.

Powers remarks did NOT distort Obama's position but she is educated enough to know that as Obama has stated, he retains BOTH the responsibility and the right as commander in chief to do what is in the BEST interests of the American people.

To end the war give the citizens of Iraq hand held fire power and let them defend their own country. Let it become what ever it turns to be. There will be no Al Qaeda. We always have to tinker with things and screw them up. Why not let nature take it's course by giving advisors and ammo. After all every time we go to war with a country we kiss and make up in 25 years. We buy sneekers from Vetnam. I wonder what Iraq will make when we start buying from them? Burkas!! perhaps? I can't wait!!!