Didn't watch this interview because O'Reilly bent over and caved to get Obamma. He insisted on it showing during the RNC Comvention.

RE: Obammy on the surge. He has flipped flopped again?

The next thing he will be saying is that he won't tax 95% of us. Sure.

And we should buy some oceanfront land in Arizona.

Palin/McCain 08

Good job, Bill O'Reilly, but you should have held Obama's feet a bit closer to the fire.

Actually, you caught him admitting he was wrong about the surge, and you should have made him grovel, crawl, and call out to Old Joe Biden for help.

Or, better yet, why didn't you ask the great Obama to kick in some of the $10 million that his campaign raised in fear of Sarah Palin?

At least, Bill, you were able to get Obama to admit that the surge did work (when he and the Dems said it would not) beyond his wildest dreams.

Now, one must wonder what the Obama "wildest dreams" are all about.

does anyone find it funny that John McCain is talking about the cost of food, gas etc to a crowd who don't look like they are hurting for money?

"in ways that nobody anticipated"

Obama lying again. McCain anticipated it.

"in ways that nobody anticipated"

Obama lying again. McCain anticipated it.

This is the same thing that Senator Obama has always said. He didn't flip....I think that you a##hats need to just sign up and run right over to Iraq and give them folks what for....I have some ebay body armor you can borrow.

Rachel,

No. Michelle Obama $318,ooo per year to kick poor people out of her Hospital.

A couple months ago, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, McCain said that knowing what we know now he would still attack Iraq. Why does the media focus on Obama's statements, especially since they listen to what he has said?

In April 2008, the Iraq surplus was discussed with General Patraeus and Ambassador Crocker.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) "I'd like to focus a minute on the financial sacrifice of our country. It is a burr in the saddle of the American people that the Iraqi government has a budget surplus and we have a massive budget deficit, and yet we are paying and they are not."

McCain gave a campaign speech and said more money needed to be spent on training for the Iraq military.

Obama’s efforts to point to other factors that predated the “surge” – such as the Anbar Awakening (the Sunni tribal rejection of al-Qaeda extremists) and cease-fires ordered by radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr – fall on deaf ears.

Looks like the Obamabots are all busy watching their next President speak.

Don't they have DVRs?

Obama's compaign is too costly. Look at what he spent on Pensylvania against Hillary. That's not responsible spending. He's all talk.

The problem is that the surge was only a qualified success. John McCain is the one being stubborn on this issue. ........
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/09/05/stubborn-mccain-champions-war/

oh would you all just stop it!
Listen to what he is saying...the surge still did not yield the intended results. The surge was initiated to give the Iraqi's room, the room without all the violence, to install their political resolutions, which they STILL HAVE NOT DONE.

Ok, that's it on the surge.

Palin is not qualified to be vice president of this country. She really isn't qualified to be governor. I bet the folks in Alaska are quietly trying to figure out how that happened. Her education level is sorely lacking.
With the degree she has, she's not even qualified to teach a class, let alone be the vice president of this country.

I'm gonna become cheif of police in LA. Pull in all the cops off the street. Have the gang members rob, rape and murder for, let's say a few years. Put the cops back on the street after anybody who could have got out did. And crack down with a martial law/police state and restrict the movement of anybody who's stuck there and survived the aftermath after all of the uncontrolled violence. And then I'm gonna call it victory and when I run for reelection for police cheif I'm gonna run ads saying: "The violence is down, because I added cops on the beat and my "surge" worked. Now put me back in office even though I was the one who was responsible for all of that violence that went down in the first place." This is what McCain and the GOP would have you believe is your reason for rewarding their performance with another four years. Well, do you think they deserve it??? Just wanted to know.

McCain-Palin -USA
Obama-Biden liberal kooks

McCain-Palin -USA
Obama-Biden liberal kooks

be clear he said he was not conceding that he was wrong because he's not...Iraq is not stable by any stretch of the imagination...

other wise why would we be ignoring the countries wherer the terrorists are all in the name of trying to keep a cap on the bottle.

After watching both conventions with passive interest..I have come to the conclusion that Obama is a good man with a good heart..but is just too inexperienced to deal with foreign policy and national security issues..as proven by the above statements....

geevil

the surge workes because al qaeda can't risk looking like they are to blame for the unrest in the middle east over the USA and we gave money and guns to militant muslim insurgents to fight with us...a tactic that has bitten us in the a$$ when we did the same thing in afghanistan...out of it we got OBL, al qaeda and the taliban.

that is why Obama is right...the goal of the surge was political stability...we do not have it...and the American economy can't afford the decades it would take to create it if the Iraqii government won't do it on it's own.

geevill that really bugge me too the huge pay raise michelle got when her hubby became a senator, and the hospitals record with minorites. However I just can't the image out of my head of a bunch of people who all look the same at the rnc and none of which are looking like they hurt for money, just looks werid to me. In the end I am gonna vote for Obama and biden because I cant take the republicans talk on how government needs to be smaller and no big brother yet most want to have a say in the most personal decison a woman can make about her body.

Of course its too costly. That goes for the war too. We borrowed the money from China through the feds manipulation. Then there is the fact that troops are killing themselves. Then there is the cost of all the wounded. Obama will win, and he better do a good job. Ron Paul would have been a better choice.

I see the 101st fighting Keyboard battalion is online and ready to help raise money for democrats and defeat republicans with childish trolling. Meanwhile, someone is being notified that they lost a loved one in the sands of Iraq. The British know all too well. They have a military graveyard in Iraq from their much earlier involvement.

Let's boil this down real simple: Obama was right about the war as a whole (even O'Reilly admitted it), but was wrong about the surge (if we ignore the minor issue of political progress for the moment). McCain was wrong about the war, but right about the surge (again, looking only at part of the equation).

Who did better?

The surge is like the extra-credit part of a test. If you studied and do well on a test, you don't need the extra credit. If you didn't prepare for the test, your only hope of passing is getting a few extra credit points.

Which approach is better?

Obama is clueless.

How costly would it be if we DIDN'T fight terror? Anybody want to venture a guess what the human and economic tolls would be from a multi-city dirty nuke strike? Hint: It's way, WAY more than what we're spending on our two conflicts now.

Think it couldn't happen? On 9/10 nobody thought 9/11 could happen either.

Thousands of deadly terrorist attacks have been committed around the world since 9/11 and we haven't even had one. We're very fortunate.

The problem we face is what terrorists would attempt with someone like Obama in the White House. Talk about untested under pressure.

It's a totally legitimate concern and one the media stays far away from. But there are more pressing stories to report like Palin's pregnant daughter.

Posted by: Jim in OH | Sep 4, 2008 11:46:25 PM

How costly would it be if we DIDN'T fight terror? Anybody want to venture a guess what the human and economic tolls would be from a multi-city dirty nuke strike? Hint: It's way, WAY more than what we're spending on our two conflicts now.

=======================================

Hey Jimbo from OH-HIGH-OH

Could you explain how the war in Iraq has reduced the risk of "a multi-city dirty nuke strike" even a little?

Whatever Bush has done to prevent "a multi-city dirty nuke strike", invading Iraq was NOT one of them.

Here's the only substantial effect the invasion of Iraq has had on the "War Against Terror".

By invading Iraq, Bush took a state thath had no WMDs and was not a haven to terrorism, and created a country the has been a breeding ground and very effective recruiting tool for terrorists.

As to WMDs. Iraq never had 'em. But because of the invasion, Iran is now much closer to developing a Nuclear Bomb.

Hmmm...of course McCain supported Bush all of this. Its almost as if he perversely wanted to ENCOURAGE the growth of terrorism.

=======================================

BTW, I caught your post from earlier. I'll post my response next here, to spare you having to find it.

Posted by: Jim in OH | Sep 4, 2008 10:43:03 PM

You have to be on Obama's payroll. You have absolutely NO credibility.

========================================

I wish I WERE on Obama's payroll, at least he could pay my wages, unlike McCain who couldn't meet his payroll last year when his campaign had to declare bankrupcy;-)

Sorry if you didn't like the link I provided that gives an accurate & fair description of ACORN, unlike the hatchet job in your article.

Guess where I found my link...it was actually cited in the article you provided.:-)

What did you think of JIM KUHNHENN's article, the one he wrote for the Associated Press Writer Wed Sep 3, 11:48 PM ET in which he combed through Gov. Palin's speech & and pointed out her many distortions, mistatements, and well...let's call them lies.

The article can be found here...

By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer Wed Sep 3, 11:48 PM ET

http://
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/
ap_on_el_pr/
cvn_fact_check;_ylt=AoLcLZS9wcor_EG8tSI3f5ph24cA

Didn't 9/11 happen when Bush was president?

Didn't 9/10 occur a month after the August briefing memo about bin Laden wanting to "bring the fighting to America"?

Didn't Richard Clark send Condeleeza Rice a detailed memo in January 2001, in which he stated "we would make a major error if we underestimated the challenge al Qida poses"?

Boo! Vote McCain.

BCC:
Didn't Bill Clinton virtually ignore
the terrorist threat during the 8 years
he was in office prior to the 9/11
attacks! Bush was only in office for
8 months!
Wasn't it Jaimie Gorelick, Asst Attorney
General and Janet Reno, Attorney
General, who created the Intelligence
wall that prevented the FBI and CIA
from sharing information?
This prevented the 9/11 plot from
being discovered in time!
If you want to point a finger regarding
9/11, the finger points at Bill Clinton,
not George W Bush!

m@cchiavelli,

What the heck are you talking about? Reread my post. I said, "How costly would it be if we DIDN'T fight terror?" I didn't say "fight terror in Iraq." I was speaking in the general sense. You're too quick to jump to your catalog of liberal talking points. Do you have one original thought in your head?

Reaganfan -- the wall was put in place in 1978 as part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Janet Reno loosened standards related to its application in 1995. Here is a reference -- http://articles.latimes.com/2004/apr/14/nation/na-wall14_

McCain admitted that Bush failed the last 8 years and he is trying to convince people that he will be the one to change it, for someone who voted with Bush 90 percent of time, it's very hard to believe.

The war cost nearly 5,000 lives for what? We put brave soldiers lives in harms way for what? This is a legitimate argument, because this was a war of choice, not necessity, you cannot ignore the facts because of the party you are from when it comes to this issue.

reaganfan,

I'd sure like to know what was in those documents Sandy Berger stole and destroyed.

Reaganfan--To add to your excellent points-Clinton had many chances to prevent 9/11, several embassy's were bombed, U.S.S. Cole and CIA had Bin Ladin in their sights could have taken him out and they decided not. If we would have attacked we may have taken some big people out of play and 9/11 may not have even happened. Clinton/Gore were so bitter about their loss to Bush that they decided to leave the problem for Bush to deal with.

Jim in OH--It's very telling when Hamas and other terrorists groups are endorsing Obama. They know he is an appeaser. If Obama somehow gets in, get ready to wear burkas ladies and read up on the Qaran.

If Obama's wildest dreams are the simple statements that McCain and Gen Shinseki made years ago, I guess I'm going to bet on that other 10% for change.

He never ceases to stun on his ignorance of foreign policy, does he?

m@cchiavelli,

I have some questions for you (not related to Iraq).

- Should we have assisted Kuwait when Saddam invaded that country?

- What actions should we have taken after 9/11?

- Should have we invaded Afghanistan?

- How should we have handled Saddam's constant and flagrant violations of multiple UN resolutions?

- If we have an Obama administration, how should he answer future homeland terrorist attacks (say, if they originate from Iran, China, or even Russia)?

- Should we assist militarily in areas like Darfur that suffer from genocide at the hands of Islamic radicals?

- Say we arrest a terrorist cell in California and discover a nuclear device is about to go off in 30 minutes in, say, San Francisco (500,000 people will surely die) and in another major city we don't know. One of the terrorists knows how to disable the devices in both locations. How should we get that information from him? Or should we even bother?

I'm interested in your thoughts. I won't criticize you. I'm just curious about how you approach problems.

S Adams,

You are correct.

April 2008

Top Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef said the terrorist group supports Obama’s foreign policy vision.

“We don’t mind–actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance,” Yousef said in response to a question about the group’s willingness to meet with either of the Democratic presidential candidates.

Obama immediately condemend the endorsement. But that the endorsement would even be offered at all is very telling.

Reminds me of parallels I read in the book "Useful Idiots" by Mona Charen.

No one in their right mind would vote for someone like Obama that bases his experience as CEO in running a campaign he started last 18 months ago... Fact is 18 months ago Palin and McCain have already gotten their experience previously in making changes and making decisions being the true agent of change while this smooth talker lyer I mean lawyer starts his campaign to do what? To get experience in management? RIDICULOUS CLOWN. Obama the Clown thinks we Americans are fools!!! O=0 zerobama ZERO ZERO ZERO!!! zero experience means zero votes. This will be a land slide a McCain Palin win.

Wait a minute 04mcal, I'm still awake and ready to charrrgee !!!

How can you have the audacity to state that Obama bases his years in the U.S. Senate as being just a CEO of an 18 month old campaign ?!!! You need to get your facts straight hater cause what Obama meant is that he's been successful in not only employing 2500 people for his campaign vs the 50 poeple employed in her town of Wassila and also that her hometown's budget is about 12 million a year vs his campaign's budject of three times that just for the month alone, hell,just alone for his campaign ! That's politics for ya, big dog style !!! Something "little miss hockey mom" is undenialbly not ready for and you are undenialbly zero-minded ! Get ready for that land slide to slip and fall !!!

Latina For
Obama-Biden 2008-2016

Obama fans are so hillarious. He says right in the interview that the surge worked. It worked better than in anyone's wildest dreams. And yet there are still Obama supporters on here spinning it to mean that Obama was saying:

"Listen to what he is saying...the surge still did not yield the intended results."

Seriously, do you guys even know what your candidate's position is? His words are IN THE ARTICLE and crystal clear and you still aren't able to accept it. I guess that's what they mean when they say Obama supporters have no clue what his positions are and pretend like he's saying what they want to hear.

ENOUGH OF REPUBLICAN CORRUPTION.

ENOUGH OF REPUBLICAN LIES AND DECEIT.

ENOUGH OF REPUBLICAN MANIPULATION.

This year we deserve better. We deserve,

DEMOCRATS ALL THE WAY!!

Here is a thought-provoking matter to ponder over about Gov Palin. In Alaska there is a Statutory Rape law on the books that says that if an 18yr old has sex with a 17yr old it is a felony, and this law is implicit. Though I personally don’t agree with teens having sex because of what can possibly happen, as in the case with Gov Palin’s daughter. However, my argument is not whether an 18yr old should be arrested for having sex with a 17yr old, which I am not all that crazy about, but the law is the law. It can also be argued that Gov Palin has been an irresponsible parent for allowing it to happen, by not taking a stronger stand in educating her daughter about what can happen if she makes the choice to date and have sex, not to mention his age. This has more to do with Gov Palin being an irresponsible elected official, for not upholding the laws that she took an oath to uphold. Gov Palin along with others are treating this only as a personal matter, while totally disregarding its legal implication. I know this has caused personal embarrassment for Gov Palin, and I can sympathize with her for the embarrassment it has caused. Yet Irrespective of your differences with my opinion on this matter, I am sure we can all agree that we need someone in the Whitehouse that would implement the laws that they are entrusted to uphold. Because when we take a closer look at this matter, without any doubt there is a double standard being applied in this case, while many youngsters around the Country are serving jail time for commenting this same offense? After all, isn’t the Republican the ones that are always saying building more prisons, is what this Country needs? How can we allow Gov Palin to govern America, with this type of mentality? I HOPE THIS IS NOT WHAT SHE MEANS WHEN SHE SAYS THAT SHE IS A MAVERICK!

""""we need someone in the Whitehouse that would implement the laws that they are entrusted to uphold."""""

That certainly isn't Barack Obama---

You just can't be serious with trusting him to do beneficial things for our country--the guy is totally inexperienced, although I will give him book smarts--but great leaders don't have just information floating around their heads or smooth talking tongue ....they are men of substance--action not just talk, standing up for values, not backing away from them.

I'll tell you what I do trust him Barack Obama--I trust him to make allies with Washington party bosses like he did Chicago ones.

I trust that he'll fight for laws which ensure our most vulnerable children -infants born ALIVE after abortion--can be killed if they are UNWANTED.

I trust him to raise taxes and tell me how to spend my hard-earned money. He'll tell (no, more accurately---SHOW) my children it doesn't matter if you have initiative and drive and ethics and common sense--the government's going to take half your earnings anyway. Yeah, I trust he'll do that too.

And so do a large majority of people- Barack isn't going to be in the White House because people with common sense and goodness aren't going to put him there.

What Barack Obama learned from the Communist Party

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/what_barack_obama_learned_from.html

Inside Obama’s Acorn

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=

READ and LEARN about your "media-vetted" Messiah. See the networks doing much talking about these details? Are the anti-American influences and radical associations of a potential U.S. President less important than Palin's private family matters? Has everyone gone insane?

Obama reminds of the guy who did not his homework ...

...and say that "MY DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK"

THE FACT IS THAT HE DID NOT DO HIS HOMEWORK ON HOMEWORK ON IRAG.

McCAIN was right about SURGE STRATEGY ... OBAMA WAS CLUELESS about IRAQ. ...beyonnd his WETTEST DREAM

Now the game begins. Let's see how BPO (P stands for Present, real middle name cannot be used, of course) stands up to the viscious, slimy smear machine of the GOP. Hillary had to hold back from slinging the real mud for obvious reasons, namely she's a Democrat and couldn't completely blow up one of her own party members. McCain will have no such reservations. Sure, last night he said "we're all Americans so let's play nice" but that was just throwing a bone to the independents out there.

Deep down inside McCain knows just how very different he and Obama are and McCain will use everything in his arsenal to expose BPO's idealogical roots. He must have used the word "fight" about 50 times in his speech. Buckle up, folks. This is going to be a bumpy ride.

Wow!! So many posting here that don't know facts from shinola.

WMD's in Iraq? No, only 50,000 pounds of Yellowcake. Sure, it's been there for several years. DUH!!!!

The cost in lives in Iraq? Nearly 5,000. If anyone could read a history book, we lost 6,000 Soldiers and Sailors on D-DAY alone - ONE DAY.

The cost of Iraq? Sure it's high. What are American lives worth? I am sure that the loved ones of those diving head first off the 83rd floor of the WTC on 9/11 would pay every penny they have to get them back.

Am I getting through? HELLO!!!!

Palin/McCain 08

This man will say and will do anything to pander some votes. Such an integrity! Such a desparated motive! This is one time we need to judge the book by its cover.

TO: Latina For Obama-Biden 2008-2016 ....................
Are you really that dumb? How many people does the State of Alaska employ? How many National Guard troops are there? ...the campaign argument being used is as laughable as Obama....What is it like to be a useful idiot?

NObama'08

This will absolutely blow your mind. One more reason why you never hear the details of Obama's "community organizing" activities in the mainstream media. People, we are being duped on an unimaginable level.

Michelle's Boot Camps For Radicals

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=305420655186700

How can it be claimed that the surge was a complete success if one of the goals was to have the Iraqi government stand up and take over?

Documents released Tuesday by the University of Illinois at Chicago shed some light on Barack Obama’s relationship with William Ayers, a founding member of the 1960s and 1970s radical group the Weather Underground.

Obama’s association with Ayers, who now teaches at the university, has become an issue in the Illinois senator’s presidential campaign. The Weather Underground took credit for several nonfatal bombings on targets that included the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol, and critics accuse Obama of rubbing elbows with an unabashed 1960s radical.

Obama has said that, although he knew Ayers as a professor involved in community outreach efforts in Chicago, he doesn’t share Ayers’ extreme views.

The massive collection of newly released documents — 140 boxes full of them — includes agendas that clearly put Obama and Ayers in the same room for meetings of Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an educational initiative that Ayers was instrumental in starting and that Obama chaired in the 1990s.

Question for Obama

Did the Annenberg challenge succeed?
Was it too costly?

"Obama is offering a very different presidency"

Yes one of lies.

Obama is a liar. I will post information that hopfully will lead others to seek the truth. whether these stories are biased or not at least you can seek the answers for yourself.

My cousin worked for Maytag. Obama did nothing for them. What followed was a story that was ignored by the media after Obama claimed to have helped the Maytag workers in a stump speech.

Despite Obama's claims of deep concern for Galesburg's proletarian victims, however, Maytag union members told Secter that Obama had done remarkably little to save the Galesburg workers' jobs. Those workers belonged to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, whose president noted that "Obama's support for Maytag workers was more show than substance."

"Maytag union members said Obama had done remarkably little to save the Galesburg workers' jobs."

Maytag employees and former employees were particularly rankled by Obama's inaction because he possessed a special relationship with a leading Maytag decision-maker. Between 2003 and 2008, Obama received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the family of Lester Crown, one of Maytag's directors and largest investors. The Crowns and employees of their family-managed holding company (Henry Crown Investments) gave at least $195,000 to Obama's senate and presidential campaigns between 2003 and 2008. According to Crown, however, Obama never once raised the fate of Maytag's Galesburg workers with him.

Obama will would not have time to be wrong when the White House is burning around him after an attack by the radicals and no time if a nuke hits.
Smooth talk and incredible untruths keep streaming out between his stuttering lips when trying to think of what he said at the other venues.

"I am a Hillary supported that after hearing the Palin/McCain speeches will be now voting for blah blah blah blah blah..."

Like that's going to fool anyone but yourselves.

These pathetic Republican "pseudo Hillary people" think they can stand and post everywhere, in front of real Hillary supporters, and pretend their shallow logic has now made them McCain/Palin supporters.

You fools don't even come close to getting it. You people are such obvious victims of the sexist nature of your political party's policies on women that you think we support Hillary because of her tits and shinny white smile.

We support Hillary not only because she is a woman with highly capable intellect, experience and abilities, but because SHE HAS BALLS!!!

Posted by: Dom | Sep 5, 2008 11:47:08 AM
========================================

LOLOL, Don't forget the phony African-Americans voting for the bloated white presidential ticket, LOLOL!

Poor McCainites, they are resorting to the most pathetic tactics...

The joy I feel the most is that they will now suffer for 8 years+!!!!

RIP Republican Party!

Samatha, I was at my daughters in Peoria this last week end and I could not believe all of the negative talk about Obama. There are several other issues that we do not hear of from out state Illinois of the twisted truth, record cover ups and broken promises that have left them short and he doesn't care. He may be able to find a few people to attend his presentations but people have seen him bus in his audience for a choreographed session for some of his medias to have the right sound bites.

Back up and check his decisions and ethics of his past. We have enough corruption in DC with out putting it in the head office. Imagine the staff. He has not been in Washington long enough to make an educated attempt of appointments
Any one want to guess who he would appoint? Give us some ideas of who you would guess he would appoint to which positions.

m@cchiavelli,

What the heck are you talking about? Reread my post. I said, "How costly would it be if we DIDN'T fight terror?" I didn't say "fight terror in Iraq."

========================================

Hi Jim --

You asked how costly it would be if we didn't fight "terror". It seemed to me that since the discussion was about costs, and President Bush has claimed that the invasion of Iraq was necessary in his "fight on terror", we couldn't discuss costs without discussing the cost of the war in Iraq, or questioning whether the war in Iraq really has anything to do with the fight on terror at all.

You may not have mentioned Iraq, but Bush has -- repeatedly. If you don't mean to include Iraq in the "fight on terror" then calculating the cost of a "real fight on terror" becomes easy. Subtract the cost of the "WAR in Iraq" (hundreds of billions of dollars) from the total cost of our current fight on terror, what remains is the cost of a real war on terror, not Pres. Bush's phony war in Iraq.

Posted by: Jim in OH | Sep 5, 2008 2:23:40 AM

m@cchiavelli,

I have some questions for you (not related to Iraq).
========================================

I'm delighted to give respectful honest answers to respectful questions.

- Should we have assisted Kuwait when Saddam invaded that country? Yes.

Father Bush did the right thing, built up an effective international coalition, Colin Powell and Norm Schwarzkopf built up sufficient forces and got the job done.

Interesting to compare father and son.
Bush the Son, built up a meaningless and ineffective international coaltion, invaded with insufficient forces, and mired the country in a war that - once we decided to go in - SHOULD have been over in a year, AT MOST. Father Bush, Colin Powell, Gen. Schwarzkopf SHOWED us how we could do this. Bush Son should have asked BUSH DAD for some advice.

- What actions should we have taken after 9/11?

Built an international coalition (the world was on our side) like Pres. George H. Bush, pere did when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and then

1. Invade Afghanistan, take out Al Qaeda, take out the Taliban, try to take out Osama bin Ladin (if we could find the cave he crawled into it).

2. Use the enormous power of international policing organizations and finance institutions to freeze the banking accounts of known terrorist organizations, and to penetrate and take down terror networks.

3. Use our and international financial resources and engineering know-how to re-develop Afghanistan, build up its infrastructure, educational systems and turn it into a Model Democracy for other Muslim countries, that could serve as a model for the rest of the Middle East

- Should we have we invaded Afghanistan?

Yes, see my answer above.

- How should we have handled Saddam's constant and flagrant violations of multiple UN resolutions?

As we always had. The previous policy was the right policy. Nothing changed after 9/11, except that Pres. Bush seems to have become paranoid or something.

What was the previous policy?

Keep constant pressure on Saddam to give weapons inspectors full access to Iraq. We may never have been fully satisfied that we knew all we needed to know, even with an expert like Hans Blix hounding after Saddam, but that just means we may never actually have lifted sanctions.

Regarding Iraq, I also think that Pres. Bush was RIGHT to threaten the use of force if Saddam remained defiant, and did not allow weapons inspectors in. Note, I say threaten.

Here was Bush's mistake. He set a deadline, kept raising the bar, and then jumped the gun.

As we now know, there WERE no WMDs. We WOULD have found this out without invading Iraq if Bush had allowed Blix to do his job. The pressure we could bring to bear on Saddam were sufficient to make him comply.

The use of force was a last resort to use against Iraq, but Bush used invasion as his first resort.

That's just boneheaded, and incompetent.

I'll try to answer the rest of your questions later in the day...gotta go, now.

Respectfully,

Posted by: Jim in OH | Sep 5, 2008 2:23:40 AM

m@cchiavelli,

I have some questions for you (not related to Iraq).

==========================================

Something just occurred to me:

Funny how Pres. Bush took us INTO war because he set an artificial deadline.
(He didn't have to set that particular deadline for compliance, he could have given weapons inspectors more time, the international community more time, the American military more time to build up its forces and plan for the inevitable messy aftermath, which we are all now suffering.)

I wasn't against invading Iraq, I was against the TIMING and MANNER of our invasion of Iraq.

There was NO urgency about getting Saddam to comply by the specific date that Bush set. But once he set it, he had to do in or lose face.

Bush jumped the gun without doing his OWN homework. The unprepared C student becomes the unprepared C President. The boy becomes the man.

But NOW he wants to get an extension on taking the final exam, now he wants more time to do his homework, now he refuses to set what he calls an "artificial deadline to withdraw".

The point about DEADLINES is that they force people to do their homework, prepare for something, comply with some order, or step up to the plate and answer for their actions.

Curious....

The point about setting a SECOND DEADLINE - the date we withdraw (redeploy in p.c. speak) - is to force the current Iraqi administration to prepare, put its house in order, step up to the plate, and take responsibility.

We don't have to set an artificially premature deadline to withdraw from Iraq, but we MUST set some kind of deadline, otherwise the current Iraqi government will continue to play us for fools - using our military forces - the forces Bush/McCain pretend to honor - to police their streets, resolve their infighting, take on their gangs, build their infrastructure, protect their generating facilities, guard their prisons, provide their security, etc.

As long as they know we'll always be there, the Iraqi government will be happy to let our forces do all the heavy lifting - and then we might very well be in Iraq for 100 years, even 1000 years.

It's hard to understand how, after so much time has passed, the misinformation about Iraq's involvement with terrorism and WMD can still be so prevailant. Without regard to politics, the truth should be your basis for formulatin opinion. Fact: Iraq was NOT responsible for 9/11. Fact: Iraq was NOT involved with Al Qaida or Osama Bin Laden. Fact: THERE WERE NO WMD IN IRAQ.
Vote any way you like, but get your facts straight.

Addressing the original point; while I don't think Obama should have used the phraseology "beyond our wildest dreams", it is clear that he qualified the remarks with the following:

OBAMA: Because there is an underlying problem with what we have done. We have reduced the violence. But the Iraqis have still not taken responsibility. And we still do not have the kind of political reconciliation -- we are still spending, Bill, $10 billion or $12 billion a month

Uncle Joe Biden Needs Be More Forthcoming On His Debts and Pay them in a more responsible manner.

http://frontpage.americandaughter.com/?p=1895

And It Look As If Uncle Joe's Laggard Attitude In Paying Small Businessmen extends to his son, The LOBBYIST As Well.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/08/bidens-lobbyist-son-brother-named-in-2.html

"A son and a brother of Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) are accused in two lawsuits of defrauding a former business partner and an investor of millions of dollars in a hedge fund deal that went sour, court records show."

And Since Obama Claims He Disdains Lobbyists Why Did He Pick A VP Whose Son Is A Major Lobbyist and is Heavily tied to contributors in his father's campaign?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080824/pl_bloomberg/a6qrvqdtzkv4

"Obama Rewarded Biden's Lobbyist Son with $3.4 Million in Earmarks"

http://blog1.thejtandbearshow.com/2008/08/27/obama-rewarded-bidens-lobbyist-son-with-34-million-in-earmarks.aspx

"The senator's Web site describes Hunter Biden as a lawyer. The Obama-Biden campaign had no comment."

"It's always something to watch out for when you have a high-ranking member of Congress or an important senator whose child goes into the influence business," said Bill Allison of the Sunlight Foundation, a Washington nonprofit that advocates transparency. "It's not necessarily that the father's going to do favors for the child's clients, but that every other member knows who his father is and what the connection is and that can carry a lot of influence as well," Allison said in an interview."

Do we really want to get into corruption and special interest, with what we know about McCain and the Keating Five?

To Obamasuxx,

What's up ignorant dude, ur definitely not a minority are u ? Awww...you're really trying to make a valid point cause you hate Obama's skin color, the purpose of his campaign and fight, his inexperience as just a small town community organizer of a population of 10 million vs the great state of Alaska's population of 670,053 ! The Obama hater list can go and on. Based on the questions you had for me on how many people are employed in Alaska ? Well, approx. under 340,000 but that's ok cause she plans to drill up new jobs for the people of her great state ! "drill up" get it ? Oh and btw Alaska's National Guard consists of 3,800 for air and land, but wait this is the best part ! Right now Alaska's aviation units is the MOST POORLY STAFFED IN THE NATION ! It has only 84% of it's necessary assigned positions, the lowest in the nation !!! Way to go "little miss hockeymom" She's cutting back on unnecessary spending alright ! ARE U REALLY THAT DUMB TO MAKE THAT YOUR VALID POINT AGAINST OABAMA ? Ur an idiot, simply put for simple-minded people like u !!!

Latina For
Obama-Biden 2008-2016

Please, you Obammmabots try to get some help.

Iraq. Saddam would not let the Inspectors go where they wanted because he had, uh, 50,000 tons of YELLOWCAKE. Inspectors couldn't find their butts with both hands. How about the Fighter Planes found buried in the dessert by our troops?

Sure, we won the war in a few months but democrats and the liberal press didn't want us to win. They got those college prank pictures of prisoners with panties on their heads, and made a federal case out of it. From then on, our guys couldn't hurt a fly over there. Thanks, democrats.

After that they had to turn dangerous prisoners loose and they just went home and put on pajamas and planted bombs.

Got it now, Bots?

Palin/McCain 08

Hello Latina For
Obama-Biden 2008-2016

"Awww...you're really trying to make a valid point cause you hate Obama's skin color, the purpose of his campaign and fight"
Poor excuse to run for office. Leave my color out of this.
I did not know that Obama had to make decisions that affects 10,000,000 people, which branch of government is office of "community organizer"? And you did he answer to with the records of that office? Compare apples to apples

Regarding the surge: Obama agrees that it appears to have been effective (though we won't really know until Iraq's national elections in 2010). Question, however -- is it better policy-making to be right about the surge or about going into Iraq in the first place? We've currently committed about $800 billion in federal funds, a large portion of which we've had to borrow from foreign sources (China), to fund the effort in Iraq. Using debt funding for the war further increases the cost of the war and undermines the U.S. economically, not to mention making us beholden to foreign rivals (China). Meanwhile, when we count the costs of the war we forget to mention how many Iraqi civilians have died as a result (the people we purportedly went in to protect and liberate) -- but you can bet most of the rest of the world hasn't. Estimates vary substantially, but run as high as 500,000 innocent casualties (Lancet). Then there are the economic, psychological, and emotional costs to our soldiers and their families, which we are only beginning to realize and which have not yet been properly addressed or aided.

Opportunity costs: And, because our resources have been so tied up with Iraq, we have substantially reduced our efforts to address issues like the large amount of unsecured nuclear materials throughout Russia and other former Soviet-bloc states (GW Bush's first term cut funding for this issue). And we have not meaningfully addressed more pressing national security threats like Al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan, and Iran, not to mention North Korea, etc. Then there are the domestic issues that have been neglected and deprioritized – the mortgage/massive foreclosure crisis, rise in unemployment, gas/energy price increases, devastating natural disasters, and cronyism (example: placing individuals like Mike Brown (Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association) in charge of FEMA (he was in charge during the Hurricane Katrina debacle), etc).

National security: The net effect of the last 8 years is that the true, more immediate enemies of our country have grown in numbers and our ability to defeat them has been diluted – and, we have lost international clout and credibility (which means political power). Our responses to external terrorism have substantially exacerbated the situation to the detriment of our morale and national security - militarily, economically, and politically. We need to refocus and go after the real enemies of our country abroad and work on the real problems of our country at home. How can we be so far in debt after the richest period in American history? Is that really good for our military and economic national security?

Due process: The genius of the American system is that it has 3 branches (judicial, legislative and executive) and that power is shared between all three. One of the basic safeguards of the system is that each branch normally acts as a check and balance on the others. However, the Republican-led Congress that was in place with G.W. Bush (one in which McCain was a significant leader) failed to do just that. To that end we now have soaring deficits, executive orders issued by the President that gut laws ratified and respected by generations of judges, senators, and congressmen (for example, the proscription against torture  see Executive Order signed July 20, 2007), and a justice system that is stacked with individuals who were appointed because of personal ideologies (see Monica Goodling scandal) instead of legal objectivity and competence. As another example, see the controversial firing of U.S. Attorneys (examples are David Iglesias and John McKay) across the country (the chief federal prosecutors who make life-or-death decisions everyday to keep us safe from some of the worst criminals) -- many of whom were appointed by Republican Presidents --