[...] Democratic Presidential Candidate of Hope and Change, Barack Obama, himself might keep 80,000 troops in Iraq for 100 years. [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

All is fair game unless one is a libtard.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Nice try Doug!

But if Obama continues to repeat the lie suggesting McCain believes we need to fight the war in Iraq for one hundred years it is fair game to point out what Democrats, even those who work with Obama, have to say on the matter.

After all, if Obama can continue to misrepresent what McCain said, it’s only fair.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

RESIDUAL FORCE UPDATE….Does Barack Obama secretly want to keep 60-80,000 troops in Iraq through 2010? That’s what Colin Kahl, a “key adviser,” recommends in an academic paper circulated privately at a recent workshop — “a plan,” says reporter Eli Lake, “at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.” But Marc Lynch, who was also at the workshop, calls foul:

Let’s just reflect on the absurdity of all of this….Maybe a few dozen people even knew that Kahl had a role at all in the Obama campaign. This is “gotcha” reduced to absurdity. The paper in question was clearly an academic one, reflecting [Kahl's] own personal views. It wasn’t even circulated to the campaign, and has nothing to do with Obama’s “real” views on Iraq.

Point taken. Presidential advisors have lots of different views — and should have lots of different views. It’s newsworthy what these views are, but nobody should jump to the conclusion that any one of them is controlling unless there’s some good reason to think so [doug's emphasis]. And anyway, Marc has other fish to fry:

The only really interesting question here is who in that small, closed workshop organized by Colin Kahl decided to screw his host by violating the non-attribution agreement and handing the paper over to Eli Lake? I was there, y’know. I know who was there. By my count, there’s about three suspects… and one of them convincingly protests his innocence. I’ve got an inkling about which of the other two it is. Care to fess up?

Good luck with that!

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_04/013475.php

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I find Marc Lynch’s blog comment (reposted above by Doug) interesting for a couple of reasons.

First, Lynch seems more concerned about “who leaked” the paper Kahl wrote for Center for a New American Security, hinting at political subterfuge. (when was it written? don’t know…) Was he just as concerned about the NYT’s leak of security issues? A subject of which deserves far more consideration and responsibility before redistribution than the speculative musings of BHO’s campaign advisor on Iraq.

Why, I ask, should any campaign advisor’s opinion be considered “confidential”? There are active and inactive commanders issuing projective opinions and white papers daily. What makes Kahl’s so special? It’s an opinon that is politically expedient in this election, and should be made public.

Secondly, BHO’s campaign (per Eli’s story) denies that Kahl’s “confidential” opinion on paper is shared by Obama himself. Which begs the question, what happened to that promise of gathering voices and listening? Obama’s on record with wanting even the “bad news” from his advisors. And in this case, a military advisor not recommending pulling the majority of troops out of Iraq is “bad news” for Obama’s repetitive campaign promises.

Kahl’s views aside, this conflict of opinion demonstrates one of two things:

1: Obama may opt to make policy, and ignore the recommendations his advisors are whispering in his ear, and go with “public opinion”. In which case he is guilty of the same accusations he throws at the Bush admin of not listening to the “experts”. This I’m not okay with.

2: Obama has plans to carry on in Iraq as his advisors suggest, but doesn’t want the voters to know until he’s firmly planted in the Oval Office. It proves he’s just another slick and disingenuous politician. But I’m with Scott… I’ll take success anyway possible.

Yup… politics as usual. And the media water carriers are busy pointing to the right hand to distract what the left hand is doing.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I suppose it’s appropriate that it’s Eli Lake who has reduced the Power Game to absurdity. In a stunning piece of journalism, Lake managed to figure out that Colin Kahl envisions 60,000-80,000 US troops remaining in Iraq through 2010. Not just anybody could have uncovered this. The only really interesting question is who gave him a copy of a paper clearly labeled “not for attribution” delivered at a private, and not very big, workshop.

Let’s just reflect on the absurdity of all of this. The Sam Power episode was bad enough, but she was a high profile member of Obama’s inner-circle and a prominent surrogate. Maybe a few dozen people even knew that Kahl had a role at all in the Obama campaign. This is “gotcha” reduced to absurdity. The paper in question was clearly an academic one, reflecting his own personal views. It wasn’t even circulated to the campaign, and has nothing to do with Obama’s “real” views on Iraq. I’m only even mentioning the thing because it’s getting ridiculous play, because Kahl was Brian Katulis’s sparring partner in the debate hosted by yours truly [and forthcoming quite soon in a leading Middle East policy journal], and because I happened to be hanging out with Kahl this afternoon. Also, I suppose it’s a test for the Clinton campaign, to see if they’ve learned anything from their behavior over Power. We’ll see.

Like I said, the only really interesting question here is who in that small, closed workshop organized by Colin Kahl decided to screw his host by violating the non-attribution agreement and handing the paper over to Eli Lake? I was there, y’know. I know who was there. By my count, there’s about three suspects… and one of them convincingly protests his innocence. I’ve got an inkling about which of the other two it is. Care to fess up?

http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2008/04/made-men-aint-s.html

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Buzz,

Everyone’s a critic….

Anyways, it seems the site is working again (at least on Firefox here).

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“they just pandered to people to get their votes. They lied. They misled. They deliberately divided the nation in 2002, and in 2006 the Democratic Party made a concerted effort to secure the defeat of American forces in Iraq.”

Uhm…. Suprise? It is baffling how for decades and decades man trusts the word of another man who is attempting to gain power…. Of course He lied… And just like the next man to step up, light will seem to shine out of his rectum also, yet you will be eating out of the palm of his hand and he will get his votes, and then he will begin his agenda, and again we will sit and whine and weep because the mean man in the suit lied to us again… Boo freaking hoo…..

perhaps one day, the illusions of mankind shall fall, and we will say…. No we do not need leaders…… I am my OWN man, and I shall live this life as life should be lived…. And fugg you Mr president/prime minister/your “highness”/ your grace… Insert whatever preference here….

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Alas, even if a Prez Obama keeps 80K troops, he still misses the stated goals of the al-Jihad Group’s quest. And that is to drive ALL American presence and influence first out of Arab lands, and once that is done, to then go after the “apostate” Arab regimes in his “move towars Jerusalem”. It maybe his divide and conquer the US to collapse from within, put as “the myth of unipolarity has ended” as of 911, was a ploy the liberals bought hook, link and sinker. Suckered in.

These thoughts formulated after a full read of a very interesting 48 pg (translated) Q&A with Zawahiri that I’ve blogged on, links picked up via Gateway Pundit and full text at The Mansfield Report.

BTW, Mike’s A… thanks for the visit, guy.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

ChrisG Says:

April 4th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Curt has been notified and we “hope” (hate using that word) to have it fixed soon.

It would have been funnier if you had said “We ‘hope’ to have it ‘changed’ back soon.

Like or Dislike: 0  0