Thursday, February 28, 2008

Obama Steps In It Again



This is getting monotonous. Here's Obama at the Democrat debate February 26th, answering a Tim Russert "hypothetical" question: Since both Democrats want to mandate a US retreat and pull our troops out of Iraq, would they re-invade Iraq if al-Qaeda had a resurgence? Obama responds that "if Al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad".

I wonder whom Obama thinks we're fighting in Iraq if not al-Qaeda?

John McCain made the exact same point:

"When you examine that statement, it's pretty remarkable," McCain told a crowd in Tyler, Texas.

"I have some news. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. It's called `al-Qaeda in Iraq,'" McCain said, drawing laughter at Obama's expense.

"And my friends, if we left, they (al-Qaeda) wouldn't be establishing a base," McCain said Wednesday. "They'd be taking a country, and I'm not going to allow that to happen, my friends. I will not surrender. I will not surrender to al-Qaeda."


So what was Obama's non-response? `hey the only reason al-Qaeda's in Iraq is because McCain and Bush invaded':



Aside from the fact that Obama has no idea what he's talking about (there were plenty of instances of al-Qaeda fighters, commanders and sympathizers like Zarqawi and Imad Mugniyeh roaming freely in Iraq, contact between al-Qaeda and Saddam's regime and even a terrorist training camp with a mock-up of a 747 in Sal Pak near Baghdad) the fact is that Osama bin-Laden and Ayman Zawahiri made no bones about the fact that Iraq was their central front in their war against the US.

If I were John McCain, I would have jumped on that like a pitbull on a chihuahua.As you know, I have my own questions about the rationale for us going into Iraq, but we're there now, and Obama is clueless about the implications of a US defeat there.

Yeah,Senator Obama, the way to defeat al-Qaeda is to retreat from them and let them regroup and re-arm and re-establish themselves in Iraq! Then we can go back in and start from scratch...that'll do it!

Un-freaking-believable.

Hat tip to Yellow Limes

6 comments:

louielouie said...

Then we can go back in and start from scratch...that'll do it!

obama, sung il didn't say that ff. that's what would have to be done but that's not what he said.

if Al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad".


that does not say invade to me.
he gave that response because he would lose the support of code pink if he said we would invade. that was a bill clinton response.

Anonymous said...

'made no bones about the fact that Iraq was their central front in their war against the US.'

Of course it is, that's because it is the easiest and most convenient place for them to attack the US Army.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hi Louie ,
You're entirely correct..I assumed because of the context of the question that's what he meant.

Hello Anonymous

What's your point? That we should sit on the defensive, wait to be attacked and let al Qaeda choose the battleground?

Or are you implying that if we hadn't invaded Iraq, things would be just peachy and al-Qaeda would have let us alone?

Either position is based on a fallcy, I'm afraid.

Orde said...

Unfortunately I don't think all that many Americans know about Al-Qaeda in Iraq, so won't pick up on how significant of an off-the-scale ignorance indicator Obama's remark was.

I'd recommend a crash course for Obama starting with Journey into the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist by ex-Muslim Mark A. Gabriel, who really can break things down for the newbie student. (disregard cheesy cover, it's not a sensationalistic Islam-bashing book, but like all of Gabriel's books, informative and most clearly communicated). I've temporarily misplaced this book, but I recall Gabriel (al-Azhar trained) analyzed the Islamic Awakening in Egypt, its players and its extremist texts, and then drew lessons and analogies--what worked in getting extremists to announce partial nonviolent reforms in their positions there and how we can use that lesson in our present situation, etc.

Anonymous said...

What I mean is that it is time for the US to leave Iraq, they are an army of "liberation" who have outstayed their welcome.

Apparently, "Al Qaeda" really means 'the toilet' in arabic.

It isn't very smart to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. What is really needed is a targeted campaign of assassination directed at Al Qaeda operatives, assuming, of course, that they are not really working for the USA all along.

Freedom Fighter said...

I hate to say it like this anonymous, but your views unfortunately reveal a lack of knowledge at best and venture into true tinfoil hat territory at the worst.

First of all,I can't imagine where you get the idea that the Iraqis want us to leave. Virtually every segment of Iraqi society wants us to stay to ensure stability, from the Kurds to the Sunnis to the Maliki Government, which just signed a deal with the US for long term bases.The only people whom want us gone are al-Qaeda and people lke Moqtada al Sadr and the Mahdi Army,who are owned by Iran.Do you REALLY want to mandate a US defeat and surrender to these people? I know Obama does, but I'm willing to give you credit for some common sense, once you think things through.

And speaking of bases BTW, `al-Qaeda' means `the base' in Arabic...I can't imagine where you came up with the other definition.

As far as your suggestion of a targeted campaign, we pretty much blew that opportunity (pun intended) when Bill Clinton was otherwise engaged and we had Osama bin-Laden within our reach not once, but several times. At this point, they're too far under cover.The best way to defeat these people and their allies is through a stong and forceful presence in the region, - which is how things work in the Middle East.

Lastly,your suggestion that al-Qaeda might be `working for the US' is not only factually outlandish and ignorant, but one I find personally offensive as well.

You're welcome to comment. although I'd prefer you drop the `anaonymous ' stuff. But the `truther' BS doesn't fly here, OK?

Regards,
FF