The Challenge is out there, Obama

[autigeremt 6,717]

Visit

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.”

[Tigermike 3,055]

Well let's get to the rest of the story the latest twist the truth now the latest and greatest spin from Obama.

This didn't take long did it?

Obama Says He Is Considering Iraq Trip

THORNTON, Colo. – Senator Barack Obama said today that he is considering visiting American troops and commanders in Iraq this summer. He declined an invitation from Senator John McCain to take a joint trip to Iraq, saying: “I just don’t want to be involved in a political stunt.”

In a brief interview here, Mr. Obama said his campaign was considering taking a foreign trip after he secures the Democratic presidential nomination. No details have been set, he said, but added: “Iraq would obviously be at the top of the list of stops.”

Mr. Obama visited Iraq in January 2006 as part of a Congressional delegation to the Middle East, but he has not returned since he became a presidential candidate. Mr. McCain and the Republican National Committee have sought to use that singular trip to highlight a lack of foreign policy experience.

,,,,

,,,,,,

“I think that if I’m going to Iraq, then I’m there to talk to troops and talk to commanders, I’m not there to try to score political points or perform,” Mr. Obama said. (Yeah political points had nothing to do with this decision did it?) “The work they’re doing there is too important.” (I agree yes it is important. Why do you want to surrender?)

Mr. McCain responded with a touch of sarcasm to the news that Mr. Obama was thinking about going to Iraq. “I certainly was just a short time ago glad to hear that Senator Obama is now, quote, considering a trip to Iraq,'’ Mr. McCain said at a news conference late in the day in Los Angeles.”It’s long overdue, it’s been 871 days since he was there. And I’m confident that when he goes he will then change his position on the conflict in Iraq, because he will see the success that has been achieved on the ground.'’

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05...ring-iraq-trip/

Let me see if I understand this, a “political stunt” would be letting McCain embarrass him into a joint trip to Iraq. Letting McCain embarrass him into a solo trip? Not a stunt. OK, I get it.

Obama planning a trip to Iraq that he initially said he didn't intend to make. That's not a flip-flop is it?

If Obama is backing down this quickly after initially objecting to an Iraq trip and all it took was a little dare by McCain and a few blogers carrying on about it, I am amazed. Damn dims this is really the guy you want negotiating with Ahmadinejad, with NO PRECONDITIONS?

So how do the left wingers feel about Obama going to Iraq? Dang, a couple of weeks ago Pelosi made the trip and came back telling folks how well things were going. You don't think Obama is now wanting to get on the side that's winning do you?

[CCTAU 3,350]

So how do the left wingers feel about Obama going to Iraq? Dang, a couple of weeks ago Pelosi made the trip and came back telling folks how well things were going. You don't think Obama is now wanting to get on the side that's winning do you?

So if he goes and sees that things are going well, will he still stick to his guns about withdrawing troops ASAP? And if he does not, will that betray a majority of his constituents?

We need to get more resources in Afghanistan. On the Pak border, they are really kicking our ass. The guys they are fighting now seem to be well trained soldiers and not just terrorists. Where are they getting their training. If it is Pak, will achmed attack Pak as soon as he gets in office, like he said he would?

Achmed really backed himself into a corner by saying exactly what his left wingers wanted to hear without leaving room for common sense. But I can hear it now. If he changes his mind about pulling the troops, it will just show that he is willing to change. All those lining up to service him will forget what a stupid idea it was in the first place.

[Tiger Al 0]

You guys are right. So, let's sum it up; Rid Iraq of alleged WMD-Done. Stop alleged nuclear program-Done. Break alleged ties with al Qaeda-Done. Kill Saddam-Done. Install a new government-Done. Build a nation-Done. Surge-Done. Things are going great-Done.

We're done. What's the newest, latest unmet objective?

[autigeremt 6,717]

Install a new government: ongoing. It takes more than 4 years, just ask the founding fathers.

Iraqi Security Forces in full control: ongoing

Infrastructure rebuilding: ongoing

Increase in oil production: ongoing

It takes time to repair a nation from war. No knee jerk reaction is going to help them at all.

[Tiger Al 0]

Install a new government: ongoing. It takes more than 4 years, just ask the founding fathers.

I thought you hated welfare. They've had 5 yrs. Sink or swim.

Iraqi Security Forces in full control: ongoing

It takes 18 weeks to produce a trained infantryman. They've had 5 yrs. What's the problem?

Infrastructure rebuilding: ongoing

We've done our part. Let them chip in some. It's their country.

Increase in oil production: ongoing

What's wrong with their current production? You're just making stuff up.

It takes time to repair a nation from war. No knee jerk reaction is going to help them at all.

Again, it's been 5 yrs. almost $1,000,000,000,000.00, over 4000 dead soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines and countless Iraqi civilians.

[autigeremt 6,717]

Install a new government: ongoing. It takes more than 4 years, just ask the founding fathers.

I thought you hated welfare. They've had 5 yrs. Sink or swim.

Reality is not something you seek, is it? Where in the world did I say I HATED welfare??? I stated that it should only be for those who needed it! Someone needs to read their fairness doctrine again

Iraqi Security Forces in full control: ongoing

It takes 18 weeks to produce a trained infantryman. They've had 5 yrs. What's the problem?

You have got to be kidding me . It's more than bodies, dude. Security Forces are made up of......never mind. You want us to believe you understand, but I'm wondering with this rebutle.

Infrastructure rebuilding: ongoing

We've done our part. Let them chip in some. It's their country.

They will....with oil revenue. Your side always see things in one color.....BLUE. Have you ever studied the time it took for the U.S. to help rebuild Japan?

Increase in oil production: ongoing

What's wrong with their current production? You're just making stuff up.

No I'm not!!!! You can't see the forest or the darn trees.

It takes time to repair a nation from war. No knee jerk reaction is going to help them at all.

Again, it's been 5 yrs. almost $1,000,000,000,000.00, over 4000 dead soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines and countless Iraqi civilians.

We rebuilt Japan and Germany after WWII to stop the spread of the Soviet Union. We are now tasked with doing the same in Iraq to stop Radical Islamic Extremists.

BTW.....we lost almost as many military personnel during the last 5 years of the Clinton Admin. as we have in Iraq. Where were you then???? I salute those who paid the ultimate sacrifice for this great land. I know in my heart the U.S. could have done a better post-strike deployment, but I support you all the way! TOTAL VICTORY is what they deserve in return.

[autigeremt 6,717]

1992 .......... 1,293

1993 .......... 1,213

1994 ......... 1,075

1995 .......... 1,040

1996 .......... 974

1997 .......... 817

1998 .......... 826

1999 .......... 795

2000 ......... 774

2001 .......... 890

2002 .......... 1,007

2003 .......... 1,410 [534*]

2004 .......... 1,887 [900*]

2005 .......... [919*]

2006 .......... [920*]

Figures so noted with an asterisk (*) indicates deaths as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Install a new government: ongoing. It takes more than 4 years, just ask the founding fathers.

I thought you hated welfare. They've had 5 yrs. Sink or swim.

Reality is not something you seek, is it? Where in the world did I say I HATED welfare??? I stated that it should only be for those who needed it! Someone needs to read their fairness doctrine again

Iraqi Security Forces in full control: ongoing

It takes 18 weeks to produce a trained infantryman. They've had 5 yrs. What's the problem?

You have got to be kidding me . It's more than bodies, dude. Security Forces are made up of......never mind. You want us to believe you understand, but I'm wondering with this rebutle.

Infrastructure rebuilding: ongoing

We've done our part. Let them chip in some. It's their country.

They will....with oil revenue. Your side always see things in one color.....BLUE. Have you ever studied the time it took for the U.S. to help rebuild Japan?

Increase in oil production: ongoing

What's wrong with their current production? You're just making stuff up.

No I'm not!!!! You can't see the forest or the darn trees.

It takes time to repair a nation from war. No knee jerk reaction is going to help them at all.

Again, it's been 5 yrs. almost $1,000,000,000,000.00, over 4000 dead soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines and countless Iraqi civilians.

We rebuilt Japan and Germany after WWII to stop the spread of the Soviet Union. We are now tasked with doing the same in Iraq to stop Radical Islamic Extremists.

BTW.....we lost almost as many military personnel during the last 5 years of the Clinton Admin. as we have in Iraq. Where were you then???? I salute those who paid the ultimate sacrifice for this great land. I know in my heart the U.S. could have done a better post-strike deployment, but I support you all the way! TOTAL VICTORY is what they deserve in return.

O.K. the facts

Military Deaths during Pres Clinton:

1993-2000...... 7,500

of which 76 were attributed to hostile action.....

the rest accidents,homicide,illnes,etc......

to use your locgic here's one

Ronald Reagan 1981-1988 military deaths 17,201

[Tiger Al 0]

Install a new government: ongoing. It takes more than 4 years, just ask the founding fathers.

I thought you hated welfare. They've had 5 yrs. Sink or swim.

Reality is not something you seek, is it? Where in the world did I say I HATED welfare??? I stated that it should only be for those who needed it! Someone needs to read their fairness doctrine again

Iraqi Security Forces in full control: ongoing

It takes 18 weeks to produce a trained infantryman. They've had 5 yrs. What's the problem?

You have got to be kidding me . It's more than bodies, dude. Security Forces are made up of......never mind. You want us to believe you understand, but I'm wondering with this rebutle.

Infrastructure rebuilding: ongoing

We've done our part. Let them chip in some. It's their country.

They will....with oil revenue. Your side always see things in one color.....BLUE. Have you ever studied the time it took for the U.S. to help rebuild Japan?

Increase in oil production: ongoing

What's wrong with their current production? You're just making stuff up.

No I'm not!!!! You can't see the forest or the darn trees.

It takes time to repair a nation from war. No knee jerk reaction is going to help them at all.

Again, it's been 5 yrs. almost $1,000,000,000,000.00, over 4000 dead soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines and countless Iraqi civilians.

We rebuilt Japan and Germany after WWII to stop the spread of the Soviet Union. We are now tasked with doing the same in Iraq to stop Radical Islamic Extremists.

BTW.....we lost almost as many military personnel during the last 5 years of the Clinton Admin. as we have in Iraq. Where were you then???? I salute those who paid the ultimate sacrifice for this great land. I know in my heart the U.S. could have done a better post-strike deployment, but I support you all the way! TOTAL VICTORY is what they deserve in return.

Think about it and try answering the questions again. If you can't or won't give a coherent response, don't reply.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

This dude lives there.

[Tiger Al 0]

This dude lives there.

Yeah, but he doesn't know what he's talking about.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

This dude lives there.

Yeah, but he doesn't know what he's talking about.

He hasn't had McCain's Blackhawk escorted tour...

[CCTAU 3,350]

This dude lives there.

Yeah, but he doesn't know what he's talking about.

If there was nothing bad to report, he'd be out of a job.

Nobody said it was all rosy. But it is looking more like a young country.

Achmed's just afraid he might have to renege on his deal.

[Tigermike 3,055]

There’s really no need for Barack Obama to make this trip after all.

link

[arnaldoabru 11]

So how do the left wingers feel about Obama going to Iraq? Dang, a couple of weeks ago Pelosi made the trip and came back telling folks how well things were going. You don't think Obama is now wanting to get on the side that's winning do you?

So if he goes and sees that things are going well, will he still stick to his guns about withdrawing troops ASAP? And if he does not, will that betray a majority of his constituents?

We need to get more resources in Afghanistan. On the Pak border, they are really kicking our ass. The guys they are fighting now seem to be well trained soldiers and not just terrorists. Where are they getting their training. If it is Pak, will achmed attack Pak as soon as he gets in office, like he said he would?

Achmed really backed himself into a corner by saying exactly what his left wingers wanted to hear without leaving room for common sense. But I can hear it now. If he changes his mind about pulling the troops, it will just show that he is willing to change. All those lining up to service him will forget what a stupid idea it was in the first place.

Whe can't we get more resources in Afghanistan?

[CCTAU 3,350]

So how do the left wingers feel about Obama going to Iraq? Dang, a couple of weeks ago Pelosi made the trip and came back telling folks how well things were going. You don't think Obama is now wanting to get on the side that's winning do you?

So if he goes and sees that things are going well, will he still stick to his guns about withdrawing troops ASAP? And if he does not, will that betray a majority of his constituents?

We need to get more resources in Afghanistan. On the Pak border, they are really kicking our ass. The guys they are fighting now seem to be well trained soldiers and not just terrorists. Where are they getting their training. If it is Pak, will achmed attack Pak as soon as he gets in office, like he said he would?

Achmed really backed himself into a corner by saying exactly what his left wingers wanted to hear without leaving room for common sense. But I can hear it now. If he changes his mind about pulling the troops, it will just show that he is willing to change. All those lining up to service him will forget what a stupid idea it was in the first place.

Whe can't we get more resources in Afghanistan?

Because there is no political advantage for the dims to even care. They scream about going after the right people but only care about Iraq's failure.

[channonc 466]

So how do the left wingers feel about Obama going to Iraq? Dang, a couple of weeks ago Pelosi made the trip and came back telling folks how well things were going. You don't think Obama is now wanting to get on the side that's winning do you?

So if he goes and sees that things are going well, will he still stick to his guns about withdrawing troops ASAP? And if he does not, will that betray a majority of his constituents?

We need to get more resources in Afghanistan. On the Pak border, they are really kicking our ass. The guys they are fighting now seem to be well trained soldiers and not just terrorists. Where are they getting their training. If it is Pak, will achmed attack Pak as soon as he gets in office, like he said he would?

Achmed really backed himself into a corner by saying exactly what his left wingers wanted to hear without leaving room for common sense. But I can hear it now. If he changes his mind about pulling the troops, it will just show that he is willing to change. All those lining up to service him will forget what a stupid idea it was in the first place.

Whe can't we get more resources in Afghanistan?

Because there is no political advantage for the dims to even care. They scream about going after the right people but only care about Iraq's failure.

What are you talking about? Last time I checked, GWB was the CIC and in charge of where the resources are ultimately used. How does this have anything to do with the "Dims" as you put it.

[CCTAU 3,350]

So how do the left wingers feel about Obama going to Iraq? Dang, a couple of weeks ago Pelosi made the trip and came back telling folks how well things were going. You don't think Obama is now wanting to get on the side that's winning do you?

So if he goes and sees that things are going well, will he still stick to his guns about withdrawing troops ASAP? And if he does not, will that betray a majority of his constituents?

We need to get more resources in Afghanistan. On the Pak border, they are really kicking our ass. The guys they are fighting now seem to be well trained soldiers and not just terrorists. Where are they getting their training. If it is Pak, will achmed attack Pak as soon as he gets in office, like he said he would?

Achmed really backed himself into a corner by saying exactly what his left wingers wanted to hear without leaving room for common sense. But I can hear it now. If he changes his mind about pulling the troops, it will just show that he is willing to change. All those lining up to service him will forget what a stupid idea it was in the first place.

Whe can't we get more resources in Afghanistan?

Because there is no political advantage for the dims to even care. They scream about going after the right people but only care about Iraq's failure.

What are you talking about? Last time I checked, GWB was the CIC and in charge of where the resources are ultimately used. How does this have anything to do with the "Dims" as you put it.

No fire, no water. I thought you dims were REALLY concerned about Afghanistan? If so, I haven't heard one dim propose to send more there. All we hear is how we need to pull out of Iraq. It's all rhetoric.

Afghanistan doesn't really need more men, they just need to turn the one's there loose to create a no man's land between Pak, and kill anything that ventures in.

But back to the point, dims do not even care about Afghanistan except when they bring up their "real war on terror". It's not a true concern for them, just another tool in the fight against Bush.

[channonc 466]

What are you talking about? Last time I checked, GWB was the CIC and in charge of where the resources are ultimately used. How does this have anything to do with the "Dims" as you put it.

No fire, no water. I thought you dims were REALLY concerned about Afghanistan? If so, I haven't heard one dim propose to send more there. All we hear is how we need to pull out of Iraq. It's all rhetoric.

Afghanistan doesn't really need more men, they just need to turn the one's there loose to create a no man's land between Pak, and kill anything that ventures in.

But back to the point, dims do not even care about Afghanistan except when they bring up their "real war on terror". It's not a true concern for them, just another tool in the fight against Bush.

Really... interesting...

Well, you may want to take a look at the following bills:

HR 2446- the Afghanistan Freedom and Security Support Act of 2007

SRES 34- A resolution calling for the strengthening of the efforts of the United States to defeat the Taliban and terrorist networks in Afghanistan.

HRES 911- Expressing the sense of the House that the United States should increase United States forces in Afghanistan and responsibly redeploy forces from Iraq.

Additionally, there are provisions in the FY 2009 Defense Authorization Act (HR 5658)

[CCTAU 3,350]

What are you talking about? Last time I checked, GWB was the CIC and in charge of where the resources are ultimately used. How does this have anything to do with the "Dims" as you put it.

No fire, no water. I thought you dims were REALLY concerned about Afghanistan? If so, I haven't heard one dim propose to send more there. All we hear is how we need to pull out of Iraq. It's all rhetoric.

Afghanistan doesn't really need more men, they just need to turn the one's there loose to create a no man's land between Pak, and kill anything that ventures in.

But back to the point, dims do not even care about Afghanistan except when they bring up their "real war on terror". It's not a true concern for them, just another tool in the fight against Bush.

Really... interesting...

Well, you may want to take a look at the following bills:

HR 2446- the Afghanistan Freedom and Security Support Act of 2007

SRES 34- A resolution calling for the strengthening of the efforts of the United States to defeat the Taliban and terrorist networks in Afghanistan.

HRES 911- Expressing the sense of the House that the United States should increase United States forces in Afghanistan and responsibly redeploy forces from Iraq.

Additionally, there are provisions in the FY 2009 Defense Authorization Act (HR 5658)

Your guys are in charge. How come they are still sitting there or have no substance to them? You got pork slammed to the hilt in them? If not, I do not see a push to get them through. How many other bills are sitting around with good intentions just so folks can say, "I tried". Like I said, "no priority". If it were really a priority, it would be DONE already. It's just like the first 100 days of nothing form the dims, all talk, no action.

[channonc 466]

What are you talking about? Last time I checked, GWB was the CIC and in charge of where the resources are ultimately used. How does this have anything to do with the "Dims" as you put it.

No fire, no water. I thought you dims were REALLY concerned about Afghanistan? If so, I haven't heard one dim propose to send more there. All we hear is how we need to pull out of Iraq. It's all rhetoric.

Afghanistan doesn't really need more men, they just need to turn the one's there loose to create a no man's land between Pak, and kill anything that ventures in.

But back to the point, dims do not even care about Afghanistan except when they bring up their "real war on terror". It's not a true concern for them, just another tool in the fight against Bush.

Really... interesting...

Well, you may want to take a look at the following bills:

HR 2446- the Afghanistan Freedom and Security Support Act of 2007

SRES 34- A resolution calling for the strengthening of the efforts of the United States to defeat the Taliban and terrorist networks in Afghanistan.

HRES 911- Expressing the sense of the House that the United States should increase United States forces in Afghanistan and responsibly redeploy forces from Iraq.

Additionally, there are provisions in the FY 2009 Defense Authorization Act (HR 5658)

Your guys are in charge. How come they are still sitting there or have no substance to them? You got pork slammed to the hilt in them? If not, I do not see a push to get them through. How many other bills are sitting around with good intentions just so folks can say, "I tried". Like I said, "no priority". If it were really a priority, it would be DONE already. It's just like the first 100 days of nothing form the dims, all talk, no action.

The more you talk, the more obvious it becomes you have no idea what you are talking about.

[CCTAU 3,350]

What are you talking about? Last time I checked, GWB was the CIC and in charge of where the resources are ultimately used. How does this have anything to do with the "Dims" as you put it.

No fire, no water. I thought you dims were REALLY concerned about Afghanistan? If so, I haven't heard one dim propose to send more there. All we hear is how we need to pull out of Iraq. It's all rhetoric.

Afghanistan doesn't really need more men, they just need to turn the one's there loose to create a no man's land between Pak, and kill anything that ventures in.

But back to the point, dims do not even care about Afghanistan except when they bring up their "real war on terror". It's not a true concern for them, just another tool in the fight against Bush.

Really... interesting...

Well, you may want to take a look at the following bills:

HR 2446- the Afghanistan Freedom and Security Support Act of 2007

SRES 34- A resolution calling for the strengthening of the efforts of the United States to defeat the Taliban and terrorist networks in Afghanistan.

HRES 911- Expressing the sense of the House that the United States should increase United States forces in Afghanistan and responsibly redeploy forces from Iraq.

Additionally, there are provisions in the FY 2009 Defense Authorization Act (HR 5658)

Your guys are in charge. How come they are still sitting there or have no substance to them? You got pork slammed to the hilt in them? If not, I do not see a push to get them through. How many other bills are sitting around with good intentions just so folks can say, "I tried". Like I said, "no priority". If it were really a priority, it would be DONE already. It's just like the first 100 days of nothing form the dims, all talk, no action.

The more you talk, the more obvious it becomes you have no idea what you are talking about.

Yep. Me and most of America. To dims we are all stupid and need you to take care of us. Problem is, you can't. Whether the things you listed have or have not passed, the fact is, none of them actually provided for anything. Just rhetoric. I guess it's all about change now...

We are so lucky you guys are out there looking out for our dumb asses.

Hey. You guys have control of the house and the senate. Make it happen.

[arnaldoabru 11]

What are you talking about? Last time I checked, GWB was the CIC and in charge of where the resources are ultimately used. How does this have anything to do with the "Dims" as you put it.

No fire, no water. I thought you dims were REALLY concerned about Afghanistan? If so, I haven't heard one dim propose to send more there. All we hear is how we need to pull out of Iraq. It's all rhetoric.

Afghanistan doesn't really need more men, they just need to turn the one's there loose to create a no man's land between Pak, and kill anything that ventures in.

But back to the point, dims do not even care about Afghanistan except when they bring up their "real war on terror". It's not a true concern for them, just another tool in the fight against Bush.

Really... interesting...

Well, you may want to take a look at the following bills:

HR 2446- the Afghanistan Freedom and Security Support Act of 2007

SRES 34- A resolution calling for the strengthening of the efforts of the United States to defeat the Taliban and terrorist networks in Afghanistan.

HRES 911- Expressing the sense of the House that the United States should increase United States forces in Afghanistan and responsibly redeploy forces from Iraq.

Additionally, there are provisions in the FY 2009 Defense Authorization Act (HR 5658)

Don't throw facts at him.It shakes him up.

[CCTAU 3,350]

An informed follow up to this by somebody who has been there as a soldier and is there now as a reporter.

OPINION

Why Obama Must Go to Iraq

By PETE HEGSETH

June 5, 2008; Page A21

Earlier this year, I spent five days in Iraq, walking the same streets in Baghdad where I had served two years earlier as an infantry platoon leader in the 101st Airborne Division.

The visit reinforced for me not only the immense complexity of the war – so often lost in our domestic political debate – but also the importance of taking the time to visit Iraq to talk with the soldiers and Marines serving on the front lines in order to grasp the changing dynamics of a fluid battlefield.

It is for this reason that the failure of Sen. Barack Obama to travel to Iraq over the past two and a half years is worrisome, and a legitimate issue in this presidential election.

Since his election to the United States Senate in 2004, Mr. Obama has traveled to Iraq just once – in January 2006. This was more than a year before Gen. David Petraeus took command and the surge began. It was also several months before Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government came into office. Although Mr. Obama frequently criticizes the Iraqi leader on the campaign trail, he has never actually met him.

Mr. Obama's conduct is strikingly different from that of Sen. John McCain, who has been to Iraq eight times since 2003 – including three times since surge forces began to arrive in Baghdad. The senior senator from Arizona has made it his mission to truly understand what is happening on the ground, in all its messy reality.

Mr. Obama has dismissed the value of such trips, suggesting they are stage-managed productions designated to obfuscate, not illuminate, the truth. This has become an all-too-common sentiment within the Democratic Party leadership, especially since the surge began to transform conditions on the ground for the better. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has denied that there is any value in visiting the troops in Iraq, and has never done so.

In fairness, there are a number of Democrats who visit Iraq frequently – namely Sens. Joe Biden, who has made eight Iraq trips, and Jack Reed, with 10 trips. Mr. Obama's absence and cynicism stands in stark contrast to their serious approach. It is especially problematic given his intention to become our next commander in chief.

As anyone who has spent time on the ground in Iraq – speaking with troops of all ranks and backgrounds – can tell you, it is hardly a mission impossible to get them out to speak bluntly and openly about the problems they face.

Indeed, Mr. McCain's own frequent and vociferous criticisms of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his warnings, as early as 2003, that the Bush administration was pursuing a flawed strategy in Iraq, were directly informed by his firsthand interactions during his trips to Iraq. Troops and commanders warned him that we lacked sufficient forces to defeat al Qaeda and Iranian-backed militias, and they were correct.

In turn, Mr. McCain's early advocacy for the surge and his prescient conviction that it would succeed were rooted not only in his extensive knowledge of military affairs, but in his close consultations with troops serving in the theater. They recognized that the new strategy was succeeding far before the mainstream media in the U.S. was willing to acknowledge these gains.

That Mr. Obama apparently doubts his ability to distinguish spin from reality, and to draw bad news out of subordinates, does not bode well for his possible future as our nation's chief executive. As I'm sure he will discover, if he wins the White House, these are among the most important skills for a president to possess.

Even more astonishing than Mr. Obama's absence from Iraq, however, is the fact that he has apparently never sought out a single one-on-one meeting with Gen. Petraeus. The general has made repeated trips back to Washington, but Mr. Obama has shown no interest in meeting privately with him. It's enough to make you wonder who exactly Mr. Obama listens to when it comes to Iraq?

Mr. Obama frequently decries the danger of "dogmatists" and "ideologues" in public policy, yet he himself has proven consistently uninterested in putting himself in situations where he might be confronted with the hard complexities of this war. It suggests a dangerous degree of detachment and overconfidence in his own judgment.

After all, Mr. Obama was among those in January 2007 who stridently opposed the surge and confidently predicted its failure – even going so far as to vote against funding our soldiers in the field unless the Bush administration abandoned this new approach. It is now clear that Mr. Obama's judgment on the surge was spectacularly wrong.

Yet rather than admit his mistake, Mr. Obama has instead tried to downplay or disparage the gains our troops have achieved in the past 12 months, clinging to a set of talking points that increasingly seem as divorced from reality as some in the Bush administration were at the darkest moments of the war.

Mr. Obama continues to insist that "Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war" – despite the passage of numerous pieces of benchmark legislation by the Iraqi Parliament and unequivocal evidence of grassroots reconciliation across the country.

Mr. Obama also continues to claim that America has "simply thrown U.S. troops at the problem, and it has not worked" – despite the dramatic reduction in violence in precisely those areas of Iraq where American forces have surged, and since handed over to Iraqi Security Forces.

And of course, Mr. Obama persists in his pledge to withdraw all combat forces from Iraq, on a fixed timeline, beginning the moment he enters office – regardless of the recommendations of our commanders on the ground, regardless of conditions on the ground, and regardless, in short, of reality.

America is longing for an informed and principled debate about the future of Iraq. However, such a debate seems unlikely if the Democratic nominee for president won't take the time to truly understand the dynamics on the ground, let alone meet with commanders.

The time for talking points is over. Too much is at stake. When will Mr. Obama finally return to Iraq and see the situation for himself?

Mr. Hegseth, chairman of Vets for Freedom, served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division and returned as an embedded reporter.

LINK