Friday Morning Open Thread
May 30th, 2008 at 09:04am Mark Noonan
Will Obama ever go to Iraq?
Will Hillary ever quit?
Will Howard Dean survive for even a week after the nominee is chosen?
Will we be able to stifle laughter as we attempt to “debate” whether Obama has qualifications which make him a better candidate than McCain?
Discuss these and other burning questions of the day
Play nice!
Entry Filed under: Open Thread
24 Comments
1. William Teach | May 30th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Sorry, Mark, but, according to Obamajargon, this whole thread is a distraction and a diversion from the real issues facing this nation, such as hope and change, and, as well, doesn’t help the children.
BTW, anyone else think there have been meetings within the Democrat party on how to keep Howie Dean muzzled till after the election?
2. SEW | May 30th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Teach, what about Michelle Obama’s school loans? As a minority and affirmative action admit, why should she have to pay back school loans?
And why should Barry Some Obama go to Iraq? He can get all of his on the ground facts from HuffPo or Soros paid Scott McClellan. All 3 know that Petraeus is simply a mouthpiece for the evil Bush/Cheney/Rove/Halliburton evil empire. Hope, Change, Peace.
3. neocon | May 30th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Mark,
You can’t talk about Obama like that, knock it off.
The Dems are turning a can’t-miss year into a debacle. All of their past pandering to minorities and women have now put them between a rock and hard spot. Select Obama and lose feminists, select Hillary and start riots.
The chickens have come home to roost
4. Pain | May 30th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Major crane collapse in Manhattan.
5. Bigfoot | May 30th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Will Howard Dean survive for even a week after the nominee is chosen?
I think he’ll survive, but not without giving us some more primal scream therapy.
Will Hillary ever quit?
I expect her to quit at the Dem convention, at the earliest. As for her continuing as an independent (assuming that Obama gets the nomination, which is just about wrapped up), I don’t know.
Will we be able to stifle laughter as we attempt to “debate” whether Obama has qualifications which make him a better candidate than McCain?
I’d say that Obama is a better candidate, and I emphasize “candidate”. He’s younger, better looking, and (when reading from a teleprompter) a better speaker than McCain. Qualifications to be president, on the other hand, are another matter. But don’t worry, if you want laughter, Obama will probably give us a few more gaffes before it’s all over.
6. William Teach | May 30th, 2008 at 10:17 am
SEW, talk of Michelle Obama is a distraction. Sorry, just not allowed in Obama World!
7. Mark Noonan | May 30th, 2008 at 10:49 am
William,
Its not just a distraction to talk about Michelle, it is racist…SEW must check into the Rosie O’Donnel Home for Re-Education in order to “get his mind right”.
8. Mark Noonan | May 30th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Bigfoot,
The old man has been yammering on for months that Hillary will run as an independent, and I’ve been endlessly telling him that it won’t happen…but now, I’m not so sure it won’t…
9. William Teach | May 30th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Switching out of Friday silliness mode for a brief moment, with an Obama presidency, what you wrote Mark could actually come to pass.
Now that I am done distracting from important issues, I want to talk about the very real threat of….oh, look, a quarter!
10. DM | May 30th, 2008 at 11:37 am
If Hillary were to run as an independent it would ruin ANY chance she has of getting nominated to the Presidency. Right now she has significant backing but that has as much to do with the fact that she has a “D” after her name. With that missing you will see her chances to be elected to the Presidency and also reelected to the Senate should she not get the Presidency - gone.
Should Hillary stay a Democrat and if Obama gets the nomination but fails in his bid for the Presidency (as I think she (not so) secretly hopes) then she can make another attempt in 4 years using any number of new angles. To go independent not only removes the significant numbers of supports who only vote party line, it also removes the significant financial backing of the party.
11. OhioOrrin | May 30th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
the seating of mich n fla will end-up in court & the plaintiffs could be the state parties themselves.
12. Zane Safrit | May 30th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Will Obama ever go to Iraq?
That’s funny. Like all the trips McCain’s made has helped in any way…Or Rummy or Bush or Cheney. McCain talked recently about how quiet Mosul was…the day 30 people died from suicide bombers. And that picnic walk through the square with body armor and circling helicopters and no other shoppers in sight…and oh BTW 15 of the shopkeepers who opened their shops for this photo-op turned up dead a few weeks later.
Yes. Visits to Iraq. So very helpful.
13. phnx | May 30th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Obama promises to meet with leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venzeula without preconditions, but he won’t meet with General Petreus, leader of our troops in Iraq.
14. William Teach | May 30th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Zane, don’t you think that someone who aspires to be commander in chief (I mean of the USA, not Venezuala, of course) and is constantly smearing and denigrating Operation Iraqi Freedom should visit the troops in a war zone? Or, are they a distraction from the real issues of socializing our medical system and destroying our economy through high taxation and taking legally made profits from companies?
Maybe Obama should go over there and talk to the troops and commanders. Hell, even Pelosi and Murtha did, and came back with different, though quiet, opinions.
15. neocon | May 30th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Maxine Waters wants the government to take over the oil industry and Obama thinks we shoud ask permission from the world community on where we set our thermostats, what we drive and how much we eat.
If these two nuggets of socialism/communism don’t scare you away from the Democrats….you’re not an American.
16. Tractatus | May 30th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Zane, don’t you think that someone who aspires to be commander in chief (I mean of the USA, not Venezuala, of course) and is constantly smearing and denigrating Operation Iraqi Freedom should visit the troops in a war zone?
Considering that John McCain has made repeated trips to Iraq yet still doesn’t know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, can not accurately discuss troop levels, and (rather famously) lied about security conditions, I’d say visiting Iraq doesn’t necessarily do a whole lot to improve one’s understanding of the situation there. In fact, it can do the exact opposite.
neocon: It’s so precious that you think you actually made a real point there.
17. William Teach | May 30th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
That was not the question, Tractatus. Should someone who aspires to be the commander in chief visit the troops and meet with the commanders? Instead, Obama yammers on about meeting the heads of nations and groups that are hostile to the USA.
Just goes to prove that Democrats think terrorists are the good guys, and the US military is the bad guys.
18. Danish Artist | May 30th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Bush won 2004 election because Kerry was swiftboated.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) believes that on September 11 “we were basically at peace.”
Asked to clarify his remarks, specifically asking about the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole during Barack Obama campaign conference call, Kerry said, “well, we hadn’t declared war,” The Hill’s Sam Youngman reports.
Asked if al Qaeda was a threat at the time, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee said, “well yes, obviously they were a threat. But, fundamentally we were not at war at that point in time.”
Kerry also called John McCain “out of step with history and facts.”
UPDATE: Responding to Kerry’s claim, RNC spokesman Danny Diaz said: “It’s absolutely critical that the next Commander in Chief understands the challenges America faces. Yet it’s clear that Barack Obama has a thin understanding of history and fails to grasp the threat of terrorism.”
“After a week’s worth of examples demonstrating Obama’s lack of preparedness to serve as president, his campaign is understandably desperate to shift the focus. Considering it’s now been 873 days since Obama visited Iraq, any suggestion that he even understands what’s happening on the ground is laughable.”
———————–
with Obama we will have another President who does not take the terrorist threat seriously. He will meet with hostile nations? But, libs love to point out that terrorists are not a “nation”.
With liberal “brilliance” like this, who needs enemies.
19. Danish Artist | May 30th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Obama needs to revisit Iraq. Maybe he will notice something.
This from the Washington Post, no less.
U.S. Cites Big Gains Against Al-Qaeda
Group Is Facing Setbacks Globally, CIA Chief Says
By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 30, 2008; A01
Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaeda, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
In a strikingly upbeat assessment, the CIA chief cited major gains against al-Qaeda’s allies in the Middle East and an increasingly successful campaign to destabilize the group’s core leadership.
While cautioning that al-Qaeda remains a serious threat, Hayden said Osama bin Laden is losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world and has largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents. Two years ago, a CIA study concluded that the U.S.-led war had become a propaganda and marketing bonanza for al-Qaeda, generating cash donations and legions of volunteers.
All that has changed, Hayden said in an interview with The Washington Post this week that coincided with the start of his third year at the helm of the CIA.
“On balance, we are doing pretty well,” he said, ticking down a list of accomplishments: “Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally — and here I’m going to use the word ‘ideologically’ — as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam,” he said.
The sense of shifting tides in the terrorism fight is shared by a number of terrorism experts, though some caution that it is too early to tell whether the gains are permanent. Some credit Hayden and other U.S. intelligence leaders for going on the offensive against al-Qaeda in the area along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, where the tempo of Predator strikes has dramatically increased from previous years. But analysts say the United States has caught some breaks in the past year, benefiting from improved conditions in Iraq, as well as strategic blunders by al-Qaeda that have cut into its support base.
“One of the lessons we can draw from the past two years is that al-Qaeda is its own worst enemy,” said Robert Grenier, a former top CIA counterterrorism official who is now managing director of Kroll, a risk consulting firm. “Where they have succeeded initially, they very quickly discredit themselves.”
Others warned that al-Qaeda remains capable of catastrophic attacks and may be even more determined to stage a major strike to prove its relevance. “Al-Qaeda’s obituary has been written far too often in the past few years for anyone to declare victory,” said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University. “I agree that there has been progress. But we’re indisputably up against a very resilient and implacable enemy.”
A landmark study last August by the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies described the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area as a de facto al-Qaeda haven in which terrorist leaders were reorganizing for attacks against the West. But Hayden said counterterrorism successes extend even to that lawless region. Although he would not discuss CIA operations in the area, U.S. intelligence agencies have carried out several attacks there since January, using unmanned Predator aircraft for surgical strikes against al-Qaeda and Taliban safe houses.
“The ability to kill and capture key members of al-Qaeda continues, and keeps them off balance — even in their best safe haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border,” Hayden said.
But terrorism experts note the lack of success in the U.S. effort to capture bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Intelligence officials say they think both are living in the Pakistan-Afghanistan tribal area in locations known only to a few top aides. Hayden said capturing or killing the pair remains a top priority, though he noted the difficulties in finding them in a rugged, remote region where the U.S. military is officially forbidden to operate.
The Bush administration has been watching political developments in Pakistan with apprehension, worried that the country’s newly elected leadership will not be as tolerant of occasional unilateral U.S. strikes against al-Qaeda as was the government of President Pervez Musharraf, a close ally in the U.S. fight against terrorism.
Hayden declined to discuss what agreements, if any, have been brokered with Pakistan’s new leaders, but he said, “We’re comfortable with the authorities we have.”
Since the start of the year, he said, al-Qaeda’s global leadership has lost three senior officers, including two who succumbed “to violence,” an apparent reference to Predator strikes that killed terrorist leaders Abu Laith al-Libi and Abu Sulayman al-Jazairi in Pakistan. He also cited a successful blow against “training activity” in the region but offered no details. “Those are the kinds of things that delay and disrupt al-Qaeda’s planning,” Hayden said.
Despite the optimistic outlook, he said he is concerned that the progress against al-Qaeda could be halted or reversed because of what he considers growing complacency and a return to the mind-set that existed before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
“We remain worried, and frankly, I wonder why some other people aren’t worried, too,” he said. His concern stems in part from improved intelligence-gathering that has bolstered the CIA’s understanding of al-Qaeda’s intent, he said.
“The fact that we have kept [Americans] safe for pushing seven years now has got them back into the state of mind where ’safe’ is normal,” he said. “Our view is: Safe is hard-won, every 24 hours.”
Hayden, who has previously highlighted a gulf between Washington and its European allies on how to battle terrorism, said he is troubled that Congress and many in the media are “focused less on the threat and more on the tactics the nation has chosen to deal with the threat” — a reference to controversial CIA interrogation techniques approved by Hayden’s predecessors.
“The center line of the national discussion has moved, and in our business, our center line is more shaped by the reality of the threat,” Hayden said.
On Iraq, he said he is encouraged not only by U.S. success against al-Qaeda’s affiliates there, but also by what he described as the steadily rising competence of the Iraqi military and a growing popular antipathy toward jihadism.
“Despite this ’cause célebrè’ phenomenon, fundamentally no one really liked al-Qaeda’s vision of the future,” Hayden said. As a result, the insurgency is viewed locally as “more and more a war of al-Qaeda against Iraqis,” he said. Hayden specifically cited the recent writings of prominent Sunni clerics — including some who used to support al-Qaeda — criticizing the group for its indiscriminant killing of Muslim civilians.
While al-Qaeda misplayed its hand with gruesome attacks on Iraqi civilians, Hayden said, U.S. military commanders and intelligence officials deserve some of the credit for the shift, because they “created the circumstances” for it by building strategic alliances with Sunni and Shiite factions, he said.
Hayden warned, however, that progress in Iraq is being undermined by increasing interference by Iran, which he accused of supplying weapons, training and financial assistance to anti-U.S. insurgents. While declining to endorse any particular strategy for dealing with Iran, he described the threat in stark terms.
“It is the policy of the Iranian government, approved at the highest levels of that government, to facilitate the killing of American and other coalition forces in Iraq. Period,” he said.
20. Freedom1 | May 30th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Please sign the petition: “DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS” at Newt Gingrich’s website: Americansolutions.com
The petition states:
There are currently 218,510 signatures!
21. neocon | May 30th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Great article DA. And to think that our great defenders of human rights, the liberals, have wanted to abandon this effort from the very beginning. And now, the average Iraqi will soon experience freedom and liberty for the first time, no thanks to them.
Tractatus,
If you aren’t concerned about those two comments by your fine representatives then you have very little understanding of what made this country great.
Peace, neocon
22. Jeremiah | May 31st, 2008 at 12:05 am
Positive outcomes should always be the desired outcome…at least when the cognizance of the individual in question is operating normally, so to speak. However, when an individual comes to quick, rather than patient decisive judgment as it to the facts, one finds a lack of Spiritual control, and therefore, irrational decisions are more often the case than not. Then it can be said, ‘The Spiritual controls the physical.’
So, here’s an important question…Can we control our own thoughts and actions, through our own physical power? No way! You see, in order to make rational decisions based upon a quality evaluation of the facts, there must, there MUST be a Higher power to aid us in our own decision making.
Knowledge does not come on its own, it must be acquired, sought after, absorbed through reading, and listening to those before us who have been down that road of critical thought, and has the proof within their means to show exactly what it is that makes societies actually work. So, then, if we listen to what they have to say, then is it their obligation to prove to you with actual…physical evidence, that that is how societies have survived to become great? No! How can we know? Whenever someone shows you what societies have done that makes them work, or rather, when they’re telling you the truth…they’re basing it not merely on their opinion alone, but upon the facts that came before their opinion, and the continuation of that same fact into further generations to come, which are based upon the original, Traditional ways that worked…this is to ensure that society continues to work.
This is the problem that we have today in America…we have opposing viewpoints, and where the difference lies is in the fact that…
Conservatives (or shall I say We Conservatives), have their opinions and they are based upon the traditional means of governing as it translates into sustenance for the whole.
With the Liberals is where the problem arises…Liberals have their opinions, but they have no foundation for their opinions, they are just their opinions….and where they fail tragically in this, is they make the assumption that….”Well, this may not be the traditional ways of means, but this is how I want it to be, because I have “my own” way, and this is how I want the outcome to be.
So, if that’s the way Liberals want to set the rules, is by their “own” standards without any evaluation of facts and the traditional ways that worked…..Then who does that make “right”?
If that’s the case, then everybody would go in different directions completely astranged to reality…in other words, ‘Everything becomes the norm’.
…And that’s exactly what we find in Liberalism. That’s why our justice system is failing, because our ‘Liberal’ Supreme Court “justice” system has become so lenient with criminals and pornography, and homosexuals…and letting people get away with murder………There’s no restrictions. Furthermore, this is how it translates to the War in Iraq….because the outcome did not suit their carefully equated outcome, they get upset, and whine around like a bunch of babies. Even after showing them that countries must continue to be occupied after the initial brunt of the war is over…they still refuse to acknowledge that that is the only way to a good end. After an individual gets in the liberal mind of thinking they are more than most of the time…hopeless.
Liberalism, in essence, is a set of ideologies that help to craft false consciousness, built upon false pretense, assumptions as they translate to their own opinions, and only their opinions and therefore, they create psychological barriers to the creation of a society that puts the individual over and above all, and thus, society slowly deteriorates as God turns away his most gracious blessings.
The only way that any society will ever work properly is if the individual will put God first in their lives, and thereself last…in this way, God would more than shower them with His blessing.
God bless!
23. Accounting Financial Calc&hellip | June 9th, 2008 at 5:24 am
Accounting Financial Calculators Bad Credit Credit Cards
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
24. Mortgage Calculator Curre&hellip | June 9th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Mortgage Calculator Currency Conversion Financing
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me