What Obama Doesnt Seem to Understand

[TENAC]

This, to me, shows obamas youth in his campaigning.

Do we want to get OBL?  Sure we do, and I believe we will still.  But to try to hang this around Bush and the GOP as a failure I think at this point on the timeline is sophomoric. 

Would the American people rather have gotten OBL and had been attacked on our soil again or perhaps rendered him impotent in the war on terror and kept our soil totally attack free?

Obama: Bin Laden still free because of GOP tactics     
Jun 17 05:37 PM US/Eastern
By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer    


      WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama says he'll take no lectures from Republicans on who will keep America safer. GOP rival John McCain's campaign criticized Obama Tuesday for speaking approvingly of the successful prosecution of terrorists.

A McCain aide said, "Obama is a perfect manifestation of a September 10th mind-set" and does not understand the dangers posed by U.S. adversaries.

Obama told reporters that the Republicans have no "standing to suggest that they've learned a lot of lessons from 9-11."

He said they "helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9-11." He said Osama bin Laden is still at large in part because of their failed strategies.

In a conference call with reporters, McCain adviser Randy Scheunemann said Tuesday: "Senator Obama is a perfect manifestation of a September 10th mind-set. ... He does not understand the nature of the enemies we face." Former CIA director James Woolsey said Obama has "an extremely dangerous and extremely naive approach toward terrorism ... and toward dealing with prisoners captured overseas who have been engaged in terrorist attacks against the United States."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91C2UL00&show_article=1

I understand the nature of politic, that obama HAS to say this stuff or else he becomes irrelevant on foreign policy and must rely on his other foreign policy expertise.

Oh yeah.  He has none and is losing this one rapidly.

[jacknky]

Obama is not the only person who thinks that attacking Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and created a distraction. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. There were no terrorists there until we invaded and created a training and breeding ground for terrorists. Many in the intelligence community and the military will tell you this, especially if they're retired and can speak more freely.

many terrorism experts tell us that the military is the wrong tool to be using against terrorism. The enemy is too geographically dispersed, too small and too amorphous for the military to be the primary weapon against it. They tell us that effective intelligence and good policework is what we should be emphasizing.

Experts tell us that Iraq is not the focus of our fight against terrorism. Pakistan and Afganistan are. Hopefully, Obama would reduce our wasted resources in Iraq in order to focus on the real battle against terrorism. It's about time.

[VLinvictus]

You cannot make an argument based on "what ifs."

You cannot prove that there would or would not have been another terrorist attack had we not invaded Iraq. If you notice, 9/11 took place in 2001 and we invaded Iraq in March of 2003. That's a year and a half with no terrorist attacks that had nothing to do with Iraq.

Perhaps we could have used Afghanistan if our interest was to bring the fight to the terrorists so they wouldn't attack us here. Imagine if we had completely annihilated the Taliban and were working on building a stable democracy in Afghanistan. Afghanistan, like Iraq, borders Iran and so would have the same impact that a democratic Iraq would allegedly have. More importantly, Afghanistan borders Pakistan, a country which already has nuclear weapons.

But no. We had to invade Iraq. I, for one, wish we had finished the job in Afghanistan and captured or killed Bin Laden, put him on trial for his crimes, and locked him away in prison for the rest of his life.

[SquirleyWurley]

If I may speak plainly, and perhaps dangerously, the point in Iraq is this: it's in the friggin middle of the Middle East and otherwise what we rely on the Saudi's they can't be trusted, and China had opportunities with Saddam's oil and how do you deal with potential future China issues, and future issues in the Middle East, without more of a geographic/tactical presence, and for that matter, stability is not necessarily in our interest in the Middle East... Chaos might be more manageable in fact.  One can make such arguments, and make them well, but it isn't quite the sort of thing you might feel comfortable saying in public when asking for support for such action, because of fears the public wouldn't sympathize with such aims and tactics and manoeverings.

I.e., there are other reasons besides OBL and the Taliban, for wanting Iraq, and one can make a good case for it, but there was concern that speaking so plainly would not be effective in getting this accomplished.

To take out a dictator for such purposes is one way to redeem the audacity of such adventurism and or opportunism, especially since that dictator was no real enemy of OBL in relation to the US.

[TENAC]

You cannot make an argument based on "what ifs."

You cannot prove that there would or would not have been another terrorist attack had we not invaded Iraq. If you notice, 9/11 took place in 2001 and we invaded Iraq in March of 2003. That's a year and a half with no terrorist attacks that had nothing to do with Iraq.

Perhaps we could have used Afghanistan if our interest was to bring the fight to the terrorists so they wouldn't attack us here. Imagine if we had completely annihilated the Taliban and were working on building a stable democracy in Afghanistan. Afghanistan, like Iraq, borders Iran and so would have the same impact that a democratic Iraq would allegedly have. More importantly, Afghanistan borders Pakistan, a country which already has nuclear weapons.

But no. We had to invade Iraq. I, for one, wish we had finished the job in Afghanistan and captured or killed Bin Laden, put him on trial for his crimes, and locked him away in prison for the rest of his life.

You cannot prove that there would or would not have been another terrorist attack had we not invaded Iraq. If you notice, 9/11 took place in 2001 and we invaded Iraq in March of 2003. That's a year and a half with no terrorist attacks that had nothing to do with Iraq.

No.

But I can prove there have been no terror attacks on US soil since 911.

I can prove that terrorist attacks are down in Iraq.

I can prove that terrorism is down worldwide.

I can prove bin Laden is losing his grip within al queda (this is better than having him dead, imho).

I can prove that tens of thousands of terrorists are now dead as a result of being drawn to Iraq.

I can prove that Iraq is becoming safer day by day.

I can prove that foreign investment is coming into Iraq in a large way.

What is it you wanted to prove?

--------------------

Afghanistan has nothing except opium.  There could never have been a draw to Afghanistan as in Iraq.

Obviously oil is the draw.   We didnt want them to have it (terroists) and they didnt want us there.

This is a good article to read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/opinion/24brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

David Brooks no less.

[VLinvictus]

But I can prove there have been no terror attacks on US soil since 911.

So? There were no terror attacks between 9/11 and the invasion.

I can prove that terrorist attacks are down in Iraq.

I can prove that there were no terrorist attacks in Iraq when Saddam was in power. What caused terror attacks to rise in the first place?

I can prove that terrorism is down worldwide.

Sure you can. 

I can prove bin Laden is losing his grip within al queda (this is better than having him dead, imho).

Better would have been to have him on trial and confined in prison for the rest of his days.

I can prove that tens of thousands of terrorists are now dead as a result of being drawn to Iraq.

And even more innocent Iraqis are dead, too. So what?

I can prove that Iraq is becoming safer day by day.

Can you really? Even so, what caused Iraq to be "unsafe" in the first place? Iraq was "safe" when Saddam was in power.

I can prove that foreign investment is coming into Iraq in a large way.

So what?

Afghanistan has nothing except opium.  There could never have been a draw to Afghanistan as in Iraq

Obviously oil is the draw.   We didnt want them to have it (terroists) and they didnt want us there.

How childish. It's pity that there were so many Iraqis in the way of this "drawing out" maneuver (which, if you recall, was not the reason we went to war in the first place). I guess they got what they deserved for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It doesn't matter how many innocent Iraqis are killed so long as the bad guys get killed, too.

David Brooks no less.

I don't read MSM trash written by liberal whores.

[Faithfulee]

Good topic, thanks for bringing it up.  And the premise is correct,  Obama is childish in many ways, but this one is serious. 

Jack-
We are not at war against   ISLAMIC TERRORISM.  And that terrorism is focused on hating America,  destroying democracy and installing Shariah law worldwide. 

These beliefs are deeply imbedded in the minds of most Muslims around the world whether  Obama admits it or not.  If you understand this, you will respect that the greatest victory in Iraq will be a functioning democracy,  one that replaces a ruthless dictator. 

You and Obama and like minded people have your mindset in the rearview mirror and not on the road ahead.

VL -  I can prove that we have not been attacked here in the US since 9/11/01 and that is the measure we must use.  Obama wants to surrender in Iraq, lose our gains for democracy and put the nation at greater risk. 

TENAC Good responses. 

Where it comes back to OBL is that HE as a Muslim Terrorist has established the Islamic goal of destroying Democracy and installing Islamic Law.

He is still free because there are millions of Muslims who support that view, even many who are not terrorists themselves.  OBL is losing his grip and is in retreat,  because his IDEAL is bankrupt.  The military defeats that we have given him have had their effect,  but even more so, has been the rejection of  OBL’s  tactics where  they gain control  (Such as the Taliban). 

Obama doesn’t understand this,  or perhaps he does.  But his goal is not world peace or stability, but  to win an election. He is “dissing” Muslims because he knows that the American public isn’t sympathetic to the “Muslim” part of Islamic terrorism.

[TENAC]

But I can prove there have been no terror attacks on US soil since 911.

So? There were no terror attacks between 9/11 and the invasion.

I can prove that terrorist attacks are down in Iraq.

I can prove that there were no terrorist attacks in Iraq when Saddam was in power. What caused terror attacks to rise in the first place?

I can prove that terrorism is down worldwide.

Sure you can. 

I can prove bin Laden is losing his grip within al queda (this is better than having him dead, imho).

Better would have been to have him on trial and confined in prison for the rest of his days.

I can prove that tens of thousands of terrorists are now dead as a result of being drawn to Iraq.

And even more innocent Iraqis are dead, too. So what?

I can prove that Iraq is becoming safer day by day.

Can you really? Even so, what caused Iraq to be "unsafe" in the first place? Iraq was "safe" when Saddam was in power.

I can prove that foreign investment is coming into Iraq in a large way.

So what?

Afghanistan has nothing except opium.  There could never have been a draw to Afghanistan as in Iraq

Obviously oil is the draw.   We didnt want them to have it (terroists) and they didnt want us there.

How childish. It's pity that there were so many Iraqis in the way of this "drawing out" maneuver (which, if you recall, was not the reason we went to war in the first place). I guess they got what they deserved for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It doesn't matter how many innocent Iraqis are killed so long as the bad guys get killed, too.

David Brooks no less.

I don't read MSM trash written by liberal whores.

Sigh....maintain your socialist head in the sand.

[SquirleyWurley]

I like you more and more SW, I couldn't agree more.

Well we're agreeable about disagreements, so what's not to like about agreements?

[Faithfulee]

What Obama doesn’t understand is the depth of the hatred of Islamic Terrorists against the US and the danger we are still in.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/23/AR2008062302135.html

Early this year, a religious radical calling himself Abu Hamza had a question for the deputy leader of al-Qaeda regarding the Egyptian secret police. "Are they committing unbelief?" he tapped on his keyboard. "And is it permissible to kill them?"

A few weeks later, an answer came from a man with a $25 million bounty on his head, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Killing the police is justified, Zawahiri replied, because they are "infidels, each and every one of them."

And that from the Washington Post

The article goes on to show how effective the Islamic Terrorists are in getting their message out.  The reason is clear from the videos  in the report.  The Islamic terrorists are speaking Arabic to dedicated Muslims and are quoting the Koran and appealing to their religious beliefs to “kill them” 

U.S. officials have also acknowledged their inability to counter al-Qaeda's ideological arguments, despite a multibillion-dollar investment in public diplomacy and covert propaganda efforts aimed at Muslims.

"It is just plain embarrassing that al-Qaeda is better at communicating its message on the Internet than America," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said in a speech in November. "As one foreign diplomat asked a couple of years ago, 'How has one man in a cave managed to outcommunicate the world's greatest communication society?' "

Obama understands communication and has no hesitancy about lying or disabusing the truth in his  communications.  And that is a sad and dangerous thing.

We have made efforts to curb the propaganda on Utube, but it runs into our “freedom of  Speech”.  Another thing that Obama will have trouble with.   It is a dangerous world and we cannot afford to lose our  direction or our commitment to win the war against Islamic Terrorism.

[SquirleyWurley]

I understand how many will distort the truth (on one side or the other) to get Muslims to either be on the attack and be Islamo-fascist or terrorist or something, seeing this as true Islam, or to be peaceloving and tolerant with those of other faiths and seeing this as true Islam.

It really may not matter to either side what Islam really is, or the realities in the Middle East are, it seems to me.  Those who are interested in making convincing rhetoric need not be concerned about accuracy, truth, etc.  But reality may correct any of us, slap us in the face.  And one may be caught distorting the reality or caught in over-simplifications and distortions.

[VLinvictus]

Sigh....maintain your socialist head in the sand.

Ooh! I'm so hurt! You sure put me in my place. A single childish one liner meant to claim a false image of superiority is so much more intelligent than actually responding to the issues.

So much for the claim that conservatives are the smart and intellectual ones.

[TENAC]

Sigh....maintain your socialist head in the sand.

Ooh! I'm so hurt! You sure put me in my place. A single childish one liner meant to claim a false image of superiority is so much more intelligent than actually responding to the issues.

So much for the claim that conservatives are the smart and intellectual ones.

I can prove that terrorism is down worldwide.

Sure you can.  Roll Eyes

Thats as childest a statement as on this thread.  Yeah sure I can and my daddy is bigger than your daddy.

There is no source (and any source would tell you) that you would accept that this is fact.   Even the WPost has said the same and parallel  sources from around the world.

Such answers as sure you can shows an intellectual laziness.  Engage at least.

[VLinvictus]

You could at least use a childish one-liner that makes sense. Saying I have my "head in the sand" suggests I'm hiding in denial from a danger I'd rather not face.

[TENAC]

You could at least use a childish one-liner that makes sense. Saying I have my "head in the sand" suggests I'm hiding in denial from a danger I'd rather not face.

But you are in denial and I suppose you would rather not face the litany of items I listed that are certainly proven.

So then I am in fact accurate.  You paint a portrait of yourself holding your hands over your ears not wanting to hear the truth or at least refute what has been posted you disagree with.

[VLinvictus]

But you are in denial and I suppose you would rather not face the litany of items I listed that are certainly proven.

So then I am in fact accurate.  You paint a portrait of yourself holding your hands over your ears not wanting to hear the truth or at least refute what has been posted you disagree with.

You are free to believe whatever makes you happy.