To McCain’s invitation to visit Iraq together, Obama responded by saying it was a political stunt. Maybe in his eyes, but he sure would have benefited from McCain’s deep knowledge of war, army, and the progress made in Iraq.

Obama is letting not only his arrogance surface but his unwillingness to work on a bi-partisan level. How can he bridge, as he kept repeating, Washington and work hand in hand with both parties if he rejects the first one offered to him.

Obama cannot accurately assess the situation in Iraq because he didn’t even care to visit it more than once and only when he saw it as an essential step for his political agenda - and talk with the soldiers, the civilians, the generals in charge and see it with his own eyes. Isn’t it time he stops his monotonous leitmotiv that he voted against the war in Iraq, and show us that he has what it takes to be the Commander-in-Chief, by saying, all right, I was against it but now it is what it is, and let’s make sure I make the right decision for all involved and that includes the Iraqi people.

As McCain stated, to [stubbornly] set a fixed date for troop withdrawal would lead to chaos, genocide and increased Iranian influence, and if I may add, revert the country to a fertile ground for terrorism training bases and launching board for more anti-U.S. attacks, as it was during Sadam Hussein. Obama lacks the facts needed to make the right decision, and let’s face it he lacks experience because of his age and obvious indifference to international politics.

What can one conclude when Obama is willing to sit down with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but refuses so far to talk with Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. troops in Iraq. I’ll let you be the judge.

OBAMA DOESN?T RISE TO MCCAIN’S CHALLENGE
By Maeve Reston, Scott Martelle, and Louise Roug(LA Times 5/29/08)
Abstract by Johana Nadler
click here to view original article

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker were testifying at the Senate Armed Services Committee on today’s Iraq status. All three running presidential candidates were at hand with pointed questions in support of their views and opinions: the Democrats for the troops withdrawal, which Republicans consider “reckless and irresponsible,” and John McCain who supports the continued presence of the troops to maintain the improvement shown since the surge and keep its momentum. “To promise a withdrawal of our forces, regardless of the consequences, would constitute a failure of political and moral leadership,” he said. To which Clinton responded that “It might well be irresponsible to continue a policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) jabbed at the Democrats by asking Gen. Petraeus the consequences of removing one to two brigades a month. The general, who didn’t quite get the gist of the point the senator was trying to make, answered that “it depend[ed] on the conditions at the time. If the conditions were good — quite good — then that might be doable.”

By Janet Hook (LA Times 4/9/08)
Abstract by Johana Nadler
click here to view original article