Obama says no to McCain's Iraq invitation

[Popeye]

Yesterday, John McCain invited Obama to Iraq saying they should "go together." Well today Obama responded, exposing the old warmonger's invitation for what it was, a cheap political stunt:

"John McCain's proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don't need any more 'Mission Accomplished' banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge. The American people don't want any more false promises of progress, they deserve a real debate about a war that has overstretched our military, and cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer."

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/obama_camp_says_no_to_baghdad.php

 

[Pandora]

It couldn't have hurt to go. He has only been to Iraq once and its a few years ago, so going again and talking to the general could not hurt. Maybe they would be able to talk on the trip there and come up with ideas that they would both like to help the troops?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I think this would be an al Qaeda wet Dream, take out both of them with one powerful attack. I think it would be a bad idea no matter what to have both there together.

That said, walking around the Green zone, in the areas known as "safe" with a extra 5000 troops around after a major sweep the days before to make sure it was safe as possible....does not exactly give a good view of The Realities of Iraq.

We can only be thankful that Sadr is not nearly as Radical as the news reports him to be, in fact he is very smart and knows how to push, and retreat to fight again and again. Things are getting better yes, and I do think the surge helped to some extent, but Sadr agreeing to a Cease fire played a far bigger role. To bad the government of Iraq has yet to use that time to address the issues of bringing the Kurds Sunni and Sadrist into the fold of the government more. Or more likely agreeing to more power to lower governments that could be more reflective of its area, but with a Federal system that takes over Oil, the Army and other national issues.

Also its clear the Army needs alot more work, as it still has elements that take a paycheck, but will not fight, more so when asked to fight there own ( Shia to fight Shia, Sunni to Fight Sunni) In order for the army to truly work, it needs to be mixed up, no more Sunni groups and Shia groups, and Kurd Groups.

That said these are actions the Iraqis must take them self, not have forced on them by Americans thus making them no longer Legit.

 

[Here We Go]

This room would know if anybody so please tell me what your thoughts are about the following queries. I really do not know any solid answers.

1. What have we really accomplished in Iraq that would justify the lives of thousands of our young men? We went in for WMDs . . . no WMDs? . . . well, what did we stay for then?
   
2. Why did we go after Saddam? Sure, he was a butt-hang and was mean to his people, but what was in the interest of the United States to get him?

We can hypothetically think, "Well, no terrorist attacks have happened since then". Well, how do we know what they are thinking. They did not have to look hard for us over there since we sent them our guys. I just don't understand why we didn't leave when we found out there were no WMDs.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

This room would know if anybody so please tell me what your thoughts are about the following queries. I really do not know any solid answers.

1. What have we really accomplished in Iraq that would justify the lives of thousands of our young men? We went in for WMDs . . . no WMDs? . . . well, what did we stay for then?
   
2. Why did we go after Saddam? Sure, he was a butt-hang and was mean to his people, but what was in the interest of the United States to get him?

We can hypothetically think, "Well, no terrorist attacks have happened since then". Well, how do we know what they are thinking. They did not have to look hard for us over there since we sent them our guys. I just don't understand why we didn't leave when we found out there were no WMDs.

the no terror attacks in the US idea is such crap anyway, look how long it was from the WTC Bombing to the 9-11...and that was without a war or anything on al Qaeda.

But I can say if out goal to was to make Iran that much stronger in the middle east, Bush can sit under that Mission Accomplished banner all he wants.

 

[Here We Go]

So it looks like Bush is guilty of murdering our soldiers. It never ceases to amaze me as to WHY he was never impeached. I truly believe he is insane. It's very disturbing that we allowed him to get this far.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

So it looks like Bush is guilty of murdering our soldiers. It never ceases to amaze me as to WHY he was never impeached. I truly believe he is insane. It's very disturbing that we allowed him to get this far.

because republicans would have to help out, and they don't care what he does really.

 

[Here We Go]

because republicans would have to help out, and they don't care what he does really.

We, as American citizens should not permit this stuff to happen. We pay their salaries and mistakes. WE should band together and stop the madness! All we seem to do is complain about our government (me included) and do NOTHING about it. WHY can't we get it together and do something about it? They don't own us. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FREE!! . . . yet we are prisoners of their incompentence. (and now I shall step down from my soapbox again)

 

[pocketfullofshells]

We, as American citizens should not permit this stuff to happen. We pay their salaries and mistakes. WE should band together and stop the madness! All we seem to do is complain about our government (me included) and do NOTHING about it. WHY can't we get it together and do something about it? They don't own us. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FREE!! . . . yet we are prisoners of their incompentence. (and now I shall step down from my soapbox again)

By Republicans I meant the voters as well, not just the elected. Sheep that they are......

 

[vyo476]

It couldn't have hurt to go. He has only been to Iraq once and its a few years ago, so going again and talking to the general could not hurt. Maybe they would be able to talk on the trip there and come up with ideas that they would both like to help the troops?

I think I'm with you on this one. If Obama wants to address the reality of Iraq now, today, I think he should have something approaching a first-hand account of what it's like there now, today. Granted, with the number of guards they'd have attached to him (and McCain) it wouldn't exactly be an unbiased view, but it wouldn't have hurt him. In fact, he could have made a point of all those guards being a necessity.

To be honest, I think that what it boils down to is that he just didn't want to go, and who could blame him?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Unless they plan to go to Sadr City, and the areas away from the Green zone, whats the point? and Its all going to be a dog and pony show and given them a faulse idea of whats going on.

Want a easy way? take 20 some random picked Army guys just back and get them in a private room with Obama and or MaCain...and let them talk about whats going on. And then do the same with some Random Sunni and Shia and Kurds In Iraq as well.

walking around a Market where you can talk to only those pre screened, with the Miliary in lockdown mode...realy kinda pointless.

 

[Libsmasher]

Since the violence in Iraq is at a four year low,

http://www.boston.com/news/world/mi...nce_in_iraq_falls_to_lowest_level_in_4_years/

...any contact with reality would derail the "we can't win in iraq" narrative of the appeaser left that Obama represents.

 

[Libsmasher]

Since the violence in Iraq is at a four year low,

http://www.boston.com/news/world/mi...nce_in_iraq_falls_to_lowest_level_in_4_years/

...any contact with reality would derail the "we can't win in iraq" narrative of the appeaser left that Obama represents. The Bushophobes have always been more comfortable in the parallel universe they've constructed - their fantasies work much better there than in the real world.

 

[top gun]

Since the violence in Iraq is at a four year low,

http://www.boston.com/news/world/mi...nce_in_iraq_falls_to_lowest_level_in_4_years/

...any contact with reality would derail the "we can't win in iraq" narrative of the appeaser left that Obama represents. The Bushophobes have always been more comfortable in the parallel universe they've constructed - their fantasies work much better there than in the real world.

You mean like the parallel universe that we've been saying all along. BUSH, CHENEY, ROVE & LIBBY lied this country into a fake made up war and occupation killing over 4000 American troops, critically injuring thousands more and flushing $12 BILLION DOLLARS PER MONTH DOWN THE TOILET?

That kind of Bushopobic we ain't buying your fake "strategery" parallel universe!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_qnUMcn3hg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiefJZ0Nwus

 

[Here We Go]

Letsa' talk about "winning" IRAQ. Winning WHAT? What are we fighting for? What did the Iraqis do to us that we are at war with them? We were initially sent over there to fight the suicidal idiots that hit the World Trade Center. Now, what happened to that? So "winning" in Iraq is a moot point. There ain't nothin' to win and lots to lose if we stay over in that pitiful crazed country.