Whats Obama afraid of ? (seeing progress?)

[Christians4LessGvt]

Why Does Obama Readily Agree To One-On-One Negotiations With Ahmadinejad,
But Decline One-On-One Briefings With Our Military Leaders?



McCain to Obama: The Proof Is in the Visit
by FOXNews.com
Wednesday, May 28, 2008



John McCain on Wednesday repeated his challenge to Barack Obama to take a ride with him over to Iraq and see the situation on the ground before concluding that U.S. efforts have failed to get the war-torn nation back on track.

Speaking in a town hall meeting in Reno, Nev., the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said he was surprised Obama's campaign considered it a political stunt when McCain proposed earlier this week that the two travel together to Iraq.

"The security of this nation is more important than any political campaign. To say that we failed in Iraq doesn't comport with the facts on the ground," McCain said to applause.

McCain has hitched on to a talking point that is echoing through Republican chambers of late "that Obama would more readily meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than hold a one-on-one with U.S. Gen. David Petraeus", the head of Multinational Forces in Iraq.

"He could meet Gen. Petraeus and he could meet Ambassador [Ryan] Crocker, and he could see he could see the fact that Sadr City is quiet. He could see that the Maliki government has taken control of Basra. He could see that the Iraqi military is leading the fight in these places with the support of American troops," McCain said.

McCain has visited Iraq eight times since the war began. Obama has been to Iraq once, in 2006, before the surge credited with allowing the oil-rich nation a chance to rebuild.

McCain suggested the two forget their political differences and see for themselves results on the ground. Obama's campaign responded earlier this week by calling the suggestion, which was proposed over the weekend, "political posturing."

Obama said Tuesday that McCain's desire to plug onward in Iraq continues a failed policy of the Bush administration.

"I don't think we want to continue a misguided foreign policy and an endless war in Iraq that has cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars while making us less safe and less secure," he said.

"That's the choice in this election. On issue after issue, John McCain is offering more of the same policies that have failed for the last eight years."

"Barack Obama wants to begin a phased withdrawal of our troops and refocus our efforts on going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan," Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan added on Wednesday.

Seeing a possible opportunity to gain points against Obama, the Republican National Committee on Wednesday launched a clock on its Web site that is counting the days since the Democratic presidential front-runner visited Iraq.

"Barack Obama has only visited Iraq once and that was 871 days ago," RNC Chairman Mike Duncan said.

"Obama has done shockingly little to educate himself firsthand about the war in Iraq. Instead, he displays an arrogant certainty gained on the campaign trail. Obama's failure to visit Iraq, listen and learn firsthand and witness the surge?s progress demonstrates weak leadership that disqualifies him from being commander in chief."


http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/28/mccain-to-obama-the-proof-is-in-the-visit/

[Michael Tee]

I think the Pentagon has developed a certain expertise in "conducting tours" for visiting legislators and the purpose is not to "educate" the visitor any more than the free boat-rides and barbeques offered by condominium developers in the Caribbean are meant to "educate" the tourist.

They're both sales pitches and they're both a real waste of time.  Obama'd see what the Pentagon wants him to see.  Of course the real message of the offer is that you can't trust the lying press.  Trust the Army instead.  Well, one of the reasons we HAVE a free press is so the military can't monopolize the public's sources of information.  Why not just ditch the press completely and let the military provide ALL our news?

It's comparing apples and oranges - - negotiating differences with an enemy is one thing, volunteering for a snow-job/brainwashing by Petraeus is something else.  He's already HAD a chance to peddle his bullshit.  McCain bought it, Obama didn't.  The two of them can hash it out in November.

[sirs]

I think the Pentagon has developed a certain expertise in "conducting tours" for visiting legislators and the purpose is not to "educate" the visitor any more than the free boat-rides and barbeques offered by condominium developers in the Caribbean are meant to "educate" the tourist.  They're both sales pitches and they're both a real waste of time.  Obama'd see what the Pentagon wants him to see.

Oh, you mean like what Castro's Government does with visiting diplomats "conducting tours" in Cuba.  Or Kim in North Korea.  Or Saddam in Iraq, before regime change was instituted.  And just as likely with Ahmanutjob in Iran.  we want to be consistent now, right?

[Christians4LessGvt]

even the new york times admits progress in iraq
so now lets see
everybody including the NY Times is in on the big conspiracy to connect your looney dots?
obama doesn't want to go to iraq because he'll be in a "catch 22"
he'll see lots of progress and thus his doom/gloom wont make sense or sell as well

[Michael Tee]

<<Oh, you mean like what Castro's Government does with visiting diplomats "conducting tours" in Cuba.  Or Kim in North Korea.  Or Saddam in Iraq, before regime change was instituted.  And just as likely with Ahmanutjob in Iran.  >>

If that's what they actually did, then yes, I mean EXACTLY like that.

<<we want to be consistent now, right?>>

You can't expect consistency when you are comparing apples and oranges.  The big difference is that Petraeus wants a chance to brainwash his future boss and Obama's too smart to fall for it.  A boss doesn't let his subordinates write their own evaluations, and he sees what HE wants to see, when and where HE wants to see it.  On his terms and not the subordinates.

Your other examples aren't really comparable.  Kim, Saddam and Fidel are not trying to give the boss a guided tour of his own plant.

[sirs]

<<Oh, you mean like what Castro's Government does with visiting diplomats "conducting tours" in Cuba.  Or Kim in North Korea.  Or Saddam in Iraq, before regime change was instituted.  And just as likely with Ahmanutjob in Iran.  >>

If that's what they actually did, then yes, I mean EXACTLY like that.

Well, since you have as much evidentiary proof of the military doing what messers Iraq, Iran, Cuba & North Korea would be doing, then good, glad we agree on something for change.  Strange how its so certain how the military pulls such tours, but it's a big "if" for the rest of your gang   

And FYI, there'd be even MORE reason for the latter gang to "conduct tours" than Patreus, in order to properly propogandize their specific POV to the visiting dignitaries, so that position could be spread all around.

[Michael Tee]

I don't know how much interest Kim, Fidel and Saddam would have had in making a nice impression on visiting dignitaries (I guess everyone does, who doesn't?) but how much urgency they would have attached to it is something I just don't know.

OTOH, everyone who has ever worked for a paycheque can understand how important it is to let the boss see what a great job you are doing and NOT to let him know, where you can cover it up, where things are going wrong.  Petraeus is working for a very big paycheque - - not just the money, but honour, military pride and a place in the history books.  So while I don't really know how much of a motivation Kim, Fidel and Saddam had to shine in the eyes of a bunch of foreigners, whose media were likely to be hostile to them in any event, but I DO know that for Petraeus, it would be a very good thing if either McCain or Obama thought he was doing a great job and a very bad thing if either of them came away with the impression that he was fucking up and lying to the country about it.

[sirs]

I don't know how much interest Kim, Fidel and Saddam would have had in making a nice impression on visiting dignitaries (I guess everyone does, who doesn't?) but how much urgency they would have attached to it is something I just don't know.

About as much as you "know" as to what the military would do in "conducting tours" and impressing their bosses.  Who wouldn't want to impress them, right?  A paycheck is 1 thing.  + global support and PR can go a hell of a lot further than just a paycheck

[Plane]

I don't know how much interest Kim, Fidel and Saddam would have had in making a nice impression on visiting dignitaries (I guess everyone does, who doesn't?) but how much urgency they would have attached to it is something I just don't know.

About as much as you "know" as to what the military would do in "conducting tours" and impressing their bosses.  Who wouldn't want to impress them, right?  A paycheck is 1 thing.  + global support and PR can go a hell of a lot further than just a paycheck

A prosperous and free Iraq will still be imperfect .

I forsee an Iraq no more gratefull than France eager to kick us out and speak ill of us .

But if they are prosperous and free that is all that we need to call the project a success.

The high profit availible to them in Oil sales might speed this day , imagine an Iraq as freindly as Saudi Arabia, oh boy.

[Michael Tee]

<<even the new york times admits progress in iraq>>

Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel-Prize-winning economist, has calculated the cost of this war to date at Three Trillion Dollsrs.   So for $3,000,000,000,000 (a sum which could pay everyone's social security for the next 50 years) I would expect to see some kind of progress.  I would hate like hell to see three trill poured down the drain and not one single positive development.

So the question is, How Much Progress?  How permanent is it?  And when three trill gets you only so far, how many more trill do you want to pour down the drain to get to the next sign of "progress?"

<<everybody including the NY Times is in on the big conspiracy to connect your looney dots?>>

My dots aren't so looney.  I said from the start this whole thing would be a catastrophe and that's exactly what it is, "progress" or no "progress."  Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, more dead Americans than died in the Sept. 11 attacks, no end in sight and U.S. prestige at its lowest ever.

<<Obama doesn't want to go to iraq because he'll be in a "catch 22">>

Why?  Because he's not smart enough to see through Petraeus' snow-job?

<<he'll see lots of progress and thus his doom/gloom wont make sense or sell as well>>

Whatever "progress" he'll see won't even begin to justify one-hundredth of the misery, suffering and death that this little adventure has already caused. 

When he's the Commander-in-Chief, he'll have a great opportunity to see for himself what's going on there, and he won't be dependent on General Petraeus to show him any of it either.  I'm sure he'll hear what Petraeus has to say, but he'll talk to lots of people as well, some of whom Petraeus will wish he had rolled up in a carpet and suffocated first.  And then, as befits a C-in-C, he'll come to his own conclusions, not Petraeus', as to whether or not the people of the U.S.A. have any interest in continuing this illegal, criminal, atrocity-scarred invasion or not.

[Michael Tee]

<<A paycheck is 1 thing.  + global support and PR can go a hell of a lot further than just a paycheck>>

My point was that for Petraeus a paycheque (in the larger sense of the money PLUS his place in history, his personal honour and his prestige) is the only benefit he'll ever see from impressing his bosses.

Global support and global PR are fine for the country, but none of it does the General any good personally, not like that "paycheque."

[Plane]

<<A paycheck is 1 thing.  + global support and PR can go a hell of a lot further than just a paycheck>>

My point was that for Petraeus a paycheque (in the larger sense of the money PLUS his place in history, his personal honour and his prestige) is the only benefit he'll ever see from impressing his bosses.

Global support and global PR are fine for the country, but none of it does the General any good personally, not like that "paycheque."

There was a guy named Potemkin who got famous for this sort of thing.

Is there a potential for General Petraous to fake a lull in the fighting?

[Lanya]

That $3 trillion has made a lot of defense contracting companies very wealthy.
That's progress right there.  Not.
(PS good to see you.)

[sirs]

Sure might help a country's regime from being changed.  Again, much greater mamifestations than a paycheck.  

And no matter how many rationalizations you apply to messers Iran, NK, Cuba, can be equally applied to our military.  And any criticisms you level at the military for their so-called "conducting tours" can be equally applied to the likes of Castro, Kim, and Ajhmanutjob

[Michael Tee]

<<A prosperous and free Iraq will still be imperfect .>>

Imperfect, huh?  I think the word you are looking for is "impossible."

<<I forsee an Iraq no more gratefull than France eager to kick us out and speak ill of us .>>

That's hilarious.  How many Americans were killed by the French Resistance after the Liberation?  Now if you'll just compare that number with how many Americans were killed by the Iraq Resistance after the "Liberation" of Iraq, you'll have a good idea of how the Iraqis will compare to the French in "gratitude" to the U.S. for their "Liberation."

<<But if they are prosperous and free that is all that we need to call the project a success.>>

Yeah, I suppose that's true, and if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

<<The high profit availible to them in Oil sales might speed this day , imagine an Iraq as freindly as Saudi Arabia, oh boy.>>

The trouble with you, plane, is I never know when you are kidding me.  Saudi Arabia isn't all that friendly, but I guess you knew that, eh?