Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
RECENT POSTS
- In Shift, US Calls for "Amnesty" for Journalists in NK
- Obama Pushes Back Amid Criticism Over G-8 Progress on Iran
- While the President's Away, Health Care will Stray?
- 'My Cousin In Kenya Can't Get a Job Without Paying a Bribe': Obama Tells African Leaders to Get Their Houses in Order
- 'Camp Obama' for Malia and Sasha
- When In Rome...? Actually, not so much
- President Obama Shakes Hands with Qadaffi
- More Qs for O's WH - 7/9/2009
- President Obama Urges Major Economies Forum Nations to Act on Climate Change
- Today's Qs for O's WH - 7/9/2009
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Obama Comes to Kabul
July 19, 2008 10:16 AM
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., arrived in Kabul, Afghanistan, at around 3 a.m. ET Saturday morning on an official CODEL, or congressional delegation trip abroad.
Accompanied by Sens. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and Jack Reed, D-R.I., Obama's flight left Andrews Air Force Base in Washington, D.C., shortly after 3 p.m. Thursday. The plane stopped in Kuwait, where Obama visited troops.
In general, the trip has been shrouded in secrecy for security reasons, with the exception of when Obama's opponent, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told donors at a fundraiser at the Detroit Athletic Club that "I believe that either today or tomorrow, I am not privy to his schedule, Sen. Obama will be landing in Iraq with some other senators. There will be a congressional delegation and I am sure that Sen. Obama is going to arrive in Baghdad in a much, much safer and secure environment than the one that he would have encountered before we started the surge."
On Thursday, Obama flew from Chicago’s Midway Airport to Washington’s Reagan National Airport. That plane had been sitting under a hot sun so cabin temperature seemed to be in the 90s, with sweat trickling down the faces of Obama's accompanying Secret Service agents.
“We’re just easing you into it,” Obama told them.
After landing, a reporter asked Obama what he hoped to learn from his trip.
“Well, I’m looking forward to seeing what the situation on the ground is,” he said. “I want to, obviously, talk to the commanders and get a sense, both in Afghanistan and in Baghdad of, you know, what the most, their biggest concerns are. And I want to thank our troops for the heroic work that they’ve been doing.”
Asked if he planned to relay some tough talk to Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, he said, "I’m more interested in listening than doing a lot of talking. And I think it is very important to recognize that I’m going over there as a U.S. Senator. We have one president at a time, so it’s the president’s job to deliver those messages.”
Obama is being accompanied on his trip to Iraq and Afghanistan by his Senate foreign policy aide Mark Lippert, who recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq as a Naval reservist.
**
When he lands in Baghdad, Obama will apparently hear some conflicting messages. As ABC News' Martha Raddatz has reported, U.S. commanders on the ground are quite skeptical of Obama's plan to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. As Raddatz reported, several commanders told ABC News, on background, that there was "no way" the Obama plan for withdrawal could work logistically.
Today in Der Spiegel, however, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says U.S. troops should leave Iraq "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned." He then continued: "U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months."
He added, "So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias."
Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, told The Associated Press today that there are indications al-Qaida's senior leaders are diverting fighters from the war in Iraq to the Afghan frontier.
And of course we have yesterday's news from the White House that the U.S. and Iraq have agreed to seek "a general time horizon" for deeper reductions in American combat troops in Iraq.
But a general departure horizon, or whatever, is not a hard and firm timeline, as British Prime Minister Gordon Brown underscored for reporters in Baghdad today, per Bloomberg News.
“It is certainly our intention that we reduce our troops, but I am not going to set out an artificial timetable,” Brown said after a meeting with Maliki.
The sun now sets on the erstwhile British Empire; the UK has reduced its troop presence in Iraq from 40,000 to the 4,000 or so soldiers at an airbase in Basra where they support Iraqis.
Brown said "building blocks for the future" -- political progress, Iraqi security force training, economic reconstruction -- must be accomplished before troop withdrawal. "It's absolutely crucial we complete these tasks,'' Brown said.
-- jpt
July 19, 2008 in Obama, Barack | Permalink | Share | User Comments (276)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Now this phony guy is confident to tell the whole world: I have foreign experience!! I have just spent my weekend in Iraq and Afghanistan!!!! Please add these trips to my thin resume on foreign policy! Please vote for me!!! I have experience on foreign policy! please please!!!!
Posted by: LOL | Jul 21, 2008 10:46:54 AM
Rodney, if the Middle East doesn't change then that means the jihad against Western Civilization will continue through the next millenium. We cannot defeat the Islamic terrorists militarily. We also have to change their mindset. And the spreading of democracy is just the first step. We also have to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--the root of the jihad against Western Civilization--with the two-state solution. AND the Muslim schools must end the indoctrination of their youth with their curricula of hatred towards Israel and Western Civilization.
Obviously change in the Middle East won't happen over night...in a year...in a decade...not even in a generation.
Look how long it took for the United States to evolve from a British colony to a full democracy. The Revolutionary War took eight years (1775-1783). It took another four years before the U. S. Constitution was adopted (1787); another year for the ratification (1788); and another 9 months before the First Congress convened (Mar 4, 1789). It took another 77 years before the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed giving African-Americans full rights as American citizens. (NOTE: Unfortunately the Compromise of 1877 was a setback for African-Americans in the South, as the rights given to them under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was no longer enforced.) It was another 54 years before the 19th Amendment was passed and ratified (1920), giving women the right to vote. And it was another 44 years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed -- finally giving full rights to ALL Americans. That took ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-NINE YEARS (1775-1964).
And then there are two glaring black spots to our history: (1) The Indian Wars--101 years from the convening of the First Congress (1789) to the Massacre at Wounded Knee in 1890--with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of casualties on both sides; (2) And the Civil War (1861-1865) where over 600,000 Americans lost their lives.
If it took the United States 189 years to become fully democratic (some will argue we still haven't gotten there), how can we give up on the Middle East after just a few years?
Posted by: James Danley | Jul 20, 2008 8:47:47 PM
Photo op - no substance - a legend in his own mind and in those of his fans. It ain't only Reps that don't like Obama - the feeling crosses party lines and includes Dems and Independs as well. We are bi-partisan when it comes to this - so get over it! Obama is such a fake - why can't y'all see through him? But I guess it is the same hypnosis that carried W to victory 2 terms in a row, and led the Media into being co-conspirators of the Iraq war. The media is as much to blame for the Iraq war as is W, and they are making the same mistake again (or trying to vindicate themselves) by fawning over an empty suit, a man who has no substance and is all things to some people. Wake up America, before it is too late!
Posted by: Beckie | Jul 20, 2008 7:16:03 PM
Going to Iraq & Afghanistan with Obama & not McCain shows us that you are so Politically Biased in favor of the Democratics that you might as well be called propaganda wing of the Democratic Party.
Posted by: Belinda Book | Jul 20, 2008 10:35:58 AM
JA
THE PEOPLE LIVED IN FEAR----sounds like it was here 50 60 years ago------perhaps you would have had a foreign country invade us------people need to deal with their own problems---you can volentier when mccain decides to invade iran---where do you think it will stop---our country will be bankrupt if it dont stop-----
Posted by: rodney | Jul 20, 2008 9:41:21 AM
Rodney,
I don't think Obama will be able to stop smoking. He's tried already several times and failed.
If anything, I'd be worried about what Jeremy wrote - Obama reverting to harder drugs like crack, which he was addicted to before.
We need a strong leader who can CONTROL HIMSELF, let alone be Commander-in-Chief and run a nation. This does not bode well. Sorry. That man is weak.
Posted by: ja | Jul 20, 2008 9:35:46 AM
JA
JUST FOR YOU MAYBE OBAMA WILL STOP SMOKING-------however mccains mental capacity in on view for all to see---he is lucky someone did not harm him when he caused fire on aircraft carrier.the guy is NTS
Posted by: rodney | Jul 20, 2008 9:32:55 AM
Rodney,
Once again you display your ignorance of the situation in the middle east.
Iraq is now a country on the verge of a true democracy, with general elections. The FIRST in the Middle East.
We do not need to change the behavior of all the people in the MIddle East, just the GOVERNMENTS. The people in those countries weren't happy, especially under Hussein, they lived in fear. These people are hungry for change. The surge worked.
Sorry, but you were wrong, Obama was wrong, even I was wrong.........and McCain was right, the surge worked.
Posted by: ja | Jul 20, 2008 9:31:22 AM
ja
the so called surge is nothing more than the royal flush in an attempt to make bush look better as he is a complete failure---and for you to think we will change the behavior established over thousands of years in these countrys makes you somewhat nieve---sadam was the only thing keeping iran at bay-----do you actually think we can rule the world---sorry the romans tried that one-----once again---WHAT THE HELL ARE WE DOING THERE----YOU DONT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ARE MADE ON WARS---DOES HALIBURTON STRIKE A CORD.
Posted by: rodney | Jul 20, 2008 9:28:34 AM
Rodney,
Ageism is a form of bias as well. Your claim about McCain not knowing what country he's talking about is the lame one.
If you ask me, I'd rather have an old president than one who can't control his ADDICTIONS.
But these aren't reasons to vote. Just reasons that people like you use to try to bash other people when you have no real arguments to put forward.
Posted by: ja | Jul 20, 2008 9:26:57 AM
ja
obama cannot stop smoking----that is a rather lame statement----mccain cannot remember what country he is talking about and right on tv were all could see i wont go into his past as that would be rather cruel---but if you want i can as i have been here all the time and dont need someone to tell me.
Posted by: rodney | Jul 20, 2008 9:20:58 AM
Rodney,
There are two issues at play here. Should we have gone to war in Iraq in the first place? - Probably no.
But that is not what we are discussing. The question is, given we were already in Iraq, should we have supported the surge to tame the violence, or pull out and declare defeat?
Obviously the surge worked. We will now be able to set up a DEMOCRATIC ALLY in the middle east. Had we pulled out when Obama wanted to, the country would be overrun with Al Qaeda, civil war, genocide and more humanitarian crisis.
Please just admit that McCain was right about the surge and Obama was wrong, and let's move on. Why is it so difficult for Obama and his ego to admit he was simply WRONG, and that his plan would have led to more humanitiarian crises?
Posted by: ja | Jul 20, 2008 9:15:58 AM
Deb, it's funny you say that about Obama looking like a kid sitting at a grown up's table, because I thought the EXACT same thing.
But in the end you shouldn't judge someone for how they look in a photo op.
That being said, I look forward to Obama admitting he was wrong to vote against the surge. The man's arrogance is really going to destroy him.
Posted by: ja | Jul 20, 2008 9:12:58 AM
ja
and exactly what do you think we will have won---and at what cost financialy---and at what cost in HUMAN lives.----oh i forgot oil companies are bidding on iraq oil------there is absolutely no excuse for this war except to make a few more billionairs-----mccain learn nothing from nam what would be his next step iran
Posted by: rodney | Jul 20, 2008 9:12:31 AM
Exatlantic,
That's your biggest criticism of McCain? He's too old?
Well how about the fact Barack Obama is such a weak man, with a weak will, he is unable to stop smoking.
Do we really want a president who is substance-dependent?
(FYI, I think both of these charges carry no weight, I'm just point out if you want to play that game of personal attack it can be done on both ends.)
Posted by: ja | Jul 20, 2008 9:08:38 AM
Rodney,
We lost the war in Vietnam, we are on the verge of winning it in Iraq thanks to people like McCain who supported the surge. OBVIOUSLY, McCain DID learn a lot from Vietnam.
Apparently, McCain took a very unpopular position by supporting the surge, while Obama took the safe position, but McCain was dead right.
That's the mark of a true leader. Someone who doesn't pander to popular opinion in order to do what he knows will benefit the country in the end.
Posted by: ja | Jul 20, 2008 9:06:19 AM
Deb, I suppose for people like you, if you don't like Obama, anything he does is just not right in your eyes (not to forget your precious husband's).
For those of US who don't like McCain, nothing he does is right is our eyes. The man is just plain too old and bent out of shape to run anything. Ahm, he might have to take too many naps and we don't expect the President to the most powerful country to ever be caught napping, now, do we? Maybe that's ok for you and, less I forget - your husband - but it is not ok for the rest of America and the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: exatlantic | Jul 20, 2008 9:04:34 AM
paul-------and then add in the innocent iraq men women and children killed or crippled--as they seem to be the forgotten casulties---it is a shame that so many have suffered and died on both sides---and for nothing.
Posted by: rodney | Jul 20, 2008 8:56:43 AM
the old geser did not learn a think from vietnam--here he is with same ideas about iraq-----bet he wont wet start a plane again. wow what a dummy
Posted by: rodney | Jul 20, 2008 8:33:33 AM
Turns out the Iraqi PM DOES NOT back Obama's plan. It was translated wrong. Obama is such an elitist!
Posted by: Gary | Jul 20, 2008 7:36:04 AM
Post a comment

