Obama Will Meet With Terrorists, But Not The Leader of American Troops In Iraq
Tags: Veterans.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
At a town hall meeting in Reno, Nevada, John McCain made the follow statement and posed the following question.
Senator Obama has been to Iraq once. A little over two years ago he went, and he has never seized the opportunity, except in a hearing, to meet with General Petraeus, with General Petraeus! My friends, this is about leadership and learning.
[...]
Now, why is it that Senator Obama wants to sit down with the President of Iran, but hasn’t yet sat down with General Petraeus — the leader of our troops in Iraq?
Something tells me Obama would sooner sit down with Khalid Sheikh Mohammad than General David Patraeus.
Yesterday, RNC Chairman Robert M. “Mike” Duncan released the following statement:
“Barack Obama has only visited Iraq once – and that was 871 days ago. Despite lacking the experience and leadership to be Commander-in-Chief, 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. How would Obama make informed judgments in the future when he has not seen the situation in Iraq since the surge began? Why does Obama readily agree to one-on-one negotiations with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but decline one-on-one briefings in Baghdad with our military leaders? 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.”
… amongst other things that disqualify him from being Commander in Chief.
The RNC has launched an online clock counting the days since Obama’s last visit to Iraq.
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Vets for Freedom chimes in with a devastating ad about Obama’s unwillingness to meet with those who know the truth about Iraq – our soldiers.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Matt Margolis is co-author (with Mark Noonan) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at The Buffalo Bean. Follow Matt on Twitter.
18 Responses to “Obama Will Meet With Terrorists, But Not The Leader of American Troops In Iraq”
Caucus of Corruption
[...] Continue Reading [...]
The Republicans seem very eager to send Obama to Iraq.
Why would Obama meet with Betrayus? We all know that Bush promoted him to his current position because he toes the Bush line. Obama can only expect lies from him.
Remember when McCain went to Iraq and said everything was honkey dory? He was in a bubble surrounded by troops on the ground, on buildings and in the air. Then the next day, all the merchants he spoke to were murdered.
I don’t think Obama will be given the same level of protection McCain received. When Obama was in Texas, the Secret Service ordered the local police to stop using metal detectors citing crowd control issues, and Hillary’s outlandish RFK statement is still on my mind. Obama needs to stay stateside where it is relatively safe.
“Obama needs to stay stateside where it is relatively safe.”
Try Detroit or D.C.? Barry would be with supporters in the ME. The messiah, Hussein! Barry, Barry, Barry.
McCain and Duncan’s responses will be a great 527 video. Let the games begin! Good luck moonbats and Hussein! Or will be messiah again respond by calling it a snippet, and move on to the important issues of Hope and Change?
Tom,
Are the pages of your Obama book sticky?
Speaking of meeting with terrorist leaders, ahem President of Iran…..
This is just another small but poignant example of Barack Obama’s lack of understanding in the realm of foreign policy. Right on Barack Obama’s very own webpage he has written the following statement: “We have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting the Iranian threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them. Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization. ”
However, it took the Wall Street Journal to point out how ridiculous this “incentive” truly is … Amir Taheri writes, “Perhaps Mr. Obama is unaware that one of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s first acts was to freeze Tehran’s efforts for securing WTO membership because he regards the outfit as ‘a nest of conspiracies by Zionists and Americans.’”
So it looks like these “talks” and “incentives” to join with America are really going to work for a mad dictator. But this is what we can expect from a Barack Obama presidency.
Obama needs to study a bit more. Apparenty, he is not paying attention to what the other side has said. How will that work into diplomacy? I thought that was one needed aspect to diplomacy – listen to what the other guys are saying.
Any info on when McCain has met with Petraeus?
I only found info on the market photo-op in April ‘07. Petraeus is the one who oredered security, but I have found nothing about any discussions between the 2 of them…anytime.
Something tells me Obama would sooner sit down with Khalid Sheikh Mohammad than General David Patraeus.
Yes, and that “something” is your sad case of wingnut wishful thinking. “I hate Obama, therefore I can predict that this is what he’d do! Yeah!”
As noted before, apparently what Obama has to do to curry your favor is go to Iraq and tell several bald-faced lies about the security situation. You guys love that stuff.
“Or will be messiah again respond by calling it a snippet” SEW
Wrong. He called it “flippant”!
Danish,
Are you going to give Neal Boortz credit or are you gonna pass this info off as your own independent thought again?
InDava, are you not going to comment on the facts presented again?
This info has not been submitted for a job, project, article, or grade. It’s, once again, not “reinventing the wheel”, saves typing, increases efficiency.
Oh, I see the problem, liberals have no clue about increasing efficiency. If they did, we would not have the fat pig called nanny government that they have given us.
InDava, that WEAK tactic will not work. Comment on content and not source.
But when that’s all you have.
Once again, all I ask is you give credit, where credit is due. Your copy and paste from Neal Boortz did not contain many facts DA, merely opinions of other people and Mr. Boortz himself, which does not make them truth. It’s not a tactic DA and by the way the topic is about Iraq not Iran.
[...] asks what we all are thinking, is Barack Obama afraid of learning the truth about Iraq? From Blogs for Victory: “Senator Obama has been to Iraq once. A little over two years ago he went, and he has never [...]
“those who know the truth about Iraq – our soldiers.”
I agree!!
Like, say, the Iraq Veterans Against the War.
http://ivaw.org/about
Oh, let me guess, they don’t count to you folks. You’re only allowed to speak IN FAVOR of the war, right??
“Oh, let me guess, they don’t count to you folks. You’re only allowed to speak IN FAVOR of the war, right??”
You got it…They will be discredited and thrown under the bus.
InDava,
Oh, so the information gleaned from Obama’s website on his plans and proposals is OPINION.
Okay.
So Obama wanting to negotiate with Iran’s president and provide incentives from something that Iran has absolutely no interest is OPINION. Iran has expressed that they have no interest, but Obama would pursue that course anyway as stated on his website is OPINION.
Okay. So, they’re not truth (facts taken from Obama’s website)? If they are not truth, then they are lies. Amazing.
Wow, Obamaniac, you really fall for what the Obamessiah says. What an Obamanation!
Again, WEAK tactic InDava, you libs use it here all the time.
disco,
Theose fine gentleman are allowed to speak their mind anytime. I know how you can be confused with a desire to restrict free speech, but that’s what liberals do, not conservatives.
They are the minority though of past and present military personel that share those beliefs. In a democracy, typically the majority prevails, again In know liberals get confused with that.
I can go over this again if needed.
Peace, neocon
I did not say all, I said it doesn’t contain ‘many’..read slower next time and you might understand. Obviously, the Obama material straight from his website would be considered fact. Everything else in your post(copy and paste) is merely opinions, from other people not you…nothing more. What do you think? I’ll wait while you go find something to paste in as a retort. Not tough stuff here, DA.
You McCainiacs are nutty…..
InDava, maybe you should read more slowly, given 90% of what was there are facts.
The very last paragraph could be considered opinion, but far from what you generalized as opinion.
The report of Ahmadinejad’s actions are fact, what Obama said was fact – which is 90% of the post. The last paragraph is opinion, MY OPINION with the exception of the first sentence.
Obama states that he will use an incentive that Iran could care less about is proof that Obama is not paying attention or is naive.
Not rocket science, InDava, maybe you should worry about content rather than source.