May 29 2008

Obama Is About To Get A Hard Wake-Up Call

Published by at 11:21 am under 2008 Elections,All General Discussions,Iraq

Obama is thinking about visiting Iraq this summer, the most important place on planet Earth when it comes to America’s recent past, present and future with regards to our national security.   If he goes he is in for a serious wake-up call that will test him as a human being like nothing else has before.  I doubt seriously if Obama is going simply because John McCain challenged him to face up to the realities of Iraq.  Obama’s not one to do something risky unless he absolutely is forced into the corner (e.g., Reverend Wright).

No, what I think nailed Obama was this truly powerful ad – and what it shows Obama will need to face when he goes to Iraq:

What will Obama do when faced with tens of thousands of young, brave American heros like this young lady who will challenge Obama to finish up our victory in Iraq? What will Obama do to honor those who sacrificed all to get us to where we are, on the verge of complete victory?

This is such a risky act on Obama’s part I think the politician in him will, in the end, decline to go and face Iraq and our armed forces. But if he does go, then he will be forced to make a decision. Will he play to his anti-war base (which he needs to keep his poll numbers afloat) and diss our armed forces and those who died and were wounded to get us here? We he throw away the most valued sacrifices any person can give a country to hold onto votes? Is a pol or man of principle?

Or conversely, will he acknowledge the sacrifices of our armed forces, of our Iraqi allies and realize the only benefit to a withdrawal now is to our enemies? Will he succumb to John McCain’s wisdom and defend our gains, show he is able to be commander-in-chief and stand up to idiotic forces here in America who conceive of suicidal policies and promote them as solutions to non-problems. Will Obama be the statesman, open a new dialogue with the American people, bridge the partisan divide?

You can quickly see why this is a very dangerous action for Obama. If he is serious about going I would suspect the calls for Clinton to step aside would abruptly stop because everyone knows this is a big gambit. Either way he loses something – that is what hard choices are all about. If there was one good and one bad choice they are easy. It is these kinds of choices that have led President Bush to burn up his political capitol as he fought the war in Iraq to win. He made a series of hard choices which always had a negative impact on him.

But Bush is a leader. We don’t know what Obama is, but what little we know doesn’t show leadership. Which is why, in the end, I think he will dodge the challenge all together.

44 responses so far

44 Responses to “Obama Is About To Get A Hard Wake-Up Call”

  1. BarbaraS says:

    Yeah, well I am not convinced Pelosi didn’t go to Syria last year to guarantee the sale of the fiber optics the Bush administration refused to sell them. Hezbollah now has state of the art communications in b attle with no interruptions that we sold them previously. When will we learn to stop giving our enemies technology to kill us?

    Obama won’t go to Iraq. Michelle won’t let him. After all, 2008 is the only chance we have to elect this empty suit and she doesn’t want him to be put in danger for a piddling little unimportant thing like the presidency. She promised us that this is our only chance and she has other plans for him.

    Gonzo, take it like a man. That is, if you are one. You lost. Get over it. Go on to some other way you can destroy the US. This one didn’t work. Jump on the Scott McClellan bandwagon. That should be a winner. You can congratulate yourself when he testifies in congress under oath. Oh, wait….

  2. norm says:

    actually no terrye it was this administration that ignored the warnings. you cultists always forget that 9.11 happened on gearges watch.
    as for the suicide thing being debunked…just because you find a rationalization does not mean it is debunked.

  3. Terrye says:


    Oh bullshit. This is just great. You work over time to go back to the good ol days when nobody paid enough attention to terrorists and then you bitch that no one paid enough attention. News flash moron: If Al Gore had actually won that election, the way the Democrats swear he did that attack would have happened, because it was already planned the people already here. That is the whole point. We can not go back to those days. Bad as you want to.

  4. Terrye says:

    And speaking of cultists considering the fact that all someone has to do is say the words Rove and or Plame and the left drools and the press go bezerk…I think I might be looking a little closer to home for that whole cult thing.

  5. ivehadit says:

    George W. Bush brought the kind of “change” that was needed in Washington, sent a message to all thugs and dictators in the world that we ain’t gonna take it no more and that the UN don’t rule no more. And the libs screamed bloody murder…and are still screamin’ I see.

    The cowboy has done it again….beat ’em and they can’t stand it. And for that, we owe him lifetimes of gratitude…starting with the undoing the International Criminal Court and the Gore-lik wall…and the FISA corrections….

  6. norm says:

    terrye…we all know they were already here…the difference is that bush ignored all the warnings. explicit warnings from the clinton/gore administration. warnings from the cia. from the faa. you can call bullshit all you want…but you are ignoring a roomfull of facts in order to do it.
    as for rove and plame…well yeah…patriotic americans tend to get riled up over treason. people like you think anything your leaders do is ok fine as long as they tell you to think that way. outing covert operatives, illegally spying on americans, torture. anything is fine. just don’t bother to think for yourself.

  7. norm says:

    ivehadit…change? 1.56 gas in 01/2001. $4.19 gas today. bigger government. bigger deficits. iran is stronger. isreal is less safe. yup…he sure did bring change.

  8. WWS says:

    Congress is the # 1 culprit responsible for high oil prices.

    “But if there is a villain in all of this, it is Congress itself. That venerable body has made it impossible for U.S. producers of crude oil to tap significant domestic reserves of oil and gas, and it has foreclosed economically viable alternative sources of energy in favor of unfeasible alternatives such as wind and solar. In addition, Congress has slapped substantial taxes on gasoline. Indeed, as oil industry executives reiterated in their appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 21, 15% of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil company profits.

    To understand the depth of congressional complicity in the high price of gasoline, one must understand that crude oil prices explain 97% of the variation in the pretax price of gasoline. That price, which has risen to record levels, is set by the intersection of supply and demand. On the one hand, world-wide demand has accelerated mainly due to the rapid growth of China and India.”

  9. Whippet1 says:


    Your mission…should you choose to accept it, which I’m sure you will not because it will destroy the propaganda you’ve been spewing, is to read some of the posts at the following link:

    Enlighten yourself or remain brainwashed. Your choice.

  10. Whippet1 says:

    Hey, you’re one of the ones who wanted the congress back in the hands of the Dems and look what you got for it! Higher gas, bigger government, higher………..everything. And you’re not happy about it?

  11. Whippet1 says:

    Tried to post the links at to the information that you so emphatically deny.

    type military suicide rates into the blog search engine and you’ll find all you need to know…if you’re not too afraid to see the truth…

  12. Terrye says:


    When the Democrats were running for the Congress they said they would end the war, cut the deficit and bring down gas and oil prices. Were they lying or just full of it.

    Those prices are world prices, it is not as if oil is high here and cheap every where else. It will take more oil or less demand to bring down the prices. And maybe a little less speculating too.

  13. Terrye says:


    What explicit warnings norm? That is bull. It really is. There were no explicit warnings. If there had been Clinton should have dealt with them himself.

  14. Terrye says:

    norm is so full of mindless unreasoning hate that there is no way to have a rational conversation with him/her/it.

  15. ivehadit says:

    It would have been negligent NOT to act on Iraq knowing what was the evidence at the time. Evidence that was agreed upon by MANY countries as well as congressional members and past presidents for MANY years.

    NOT ACTING would have sent the same message that was sent after all the attacks in the ’90’s which was this: The USA is too fat and happy to defend itself.

    George W. Bush turned the entire Middle East on its head and the “status quo” group is furious…And the libs are jealous. Pure and simple-Jealousy.

    And yes, let’s get the facts prior to November 2006 regarding the economy, eh Norm/Soothie, shall we? The President alone kept us out of a worldwide depression after 9/11. And NO RECESSION. Sorry, libs. NOT.

  16. breschau says:

    Just one question:

    When Obama and McCain visit Iraq, will they get the same military escort that McCain did?

    Will they have “100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead”?

    Will they be walking through a market that might see a suicide attack at the same time – something that did happen the last time McCain visited?

    And if they do go – what insight would Obama possibly gain from a US Army approved visit to Iraq? Are he and McCain going to be allowed out in the truly dangerous areas of Iraq? Are they going to be allowed to talk to Iraqis that are living in constantly daily fear of death from this war?

    Are they going to gain any insight into this war that they couldn’t get from reading newspapers here in the US?

    If not – why go? Why could possibly be gained from this, other than a simple photo op?

    A simple question:

    What vital info do you think might actually be gained by Obama from this kind of visit?

  17. Frogg says:

    Who ya gonna believe? Barack Obama or … 100 World leaders?


    World praises progress in Iraq

    by Pia Ohlin
    Thu May 29, 1:33 PM ET

    STOCKHOLM (AFP) – World leaders, including UN chief Ban Ki-moon and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on Thursday hailed Baghdad’s progress in combatting violence and stabilising Iraq.

    A declaration adopted by 100 delegations at a Stockholm conference said the participants “recognised the important efforts made by the (Iraqi) government to improve security and public order and combat terrorism and sectarian violence across Iraq.”

    It also acknowledged political and economic progress made, and said that “given the difficult context, these successes are all the more remarkable.”

  18. Frogg says:

    The next President is gonna have bigger fish to fry than al Qaeda. Bush has led the way against al Qaeda and all the next President has to do is keep up the good work.

    The next big fish?

    ……and, all the evil they can muster.

    Personally, I don’t think Obama has it in him.

    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; Page 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.

    “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.

  19. lurker9876 says:

    If McCain and Obama make the same trip to Iraq, their goals would be entirely different and they would come home with two entirely different reports.

    Obama’s goal would be to discuss with the generals to find ways to carefully bring our troops home. Obama is not interested in achieving victory.

    McCain’s goal is to achieve victory.

    Obama would be reporting in the same vein as Pelosi has been about Iran.

    Terrye’s right that there were NO explicit warnings. Only implied and vague warnings. No one knew exactly when, how, and where it would happen.

  20. Redteam says:

    I was going to respond to worm as many others have, but it’s not worth it. He apparently doesn’t have a clue.