Thursday, July 24, 2008 Larry Elder Obama's Trip: Some Questions Katie, Brian and Charles Should Ask Q: Before your trip to Iraq, you said that you intend to give the military a "new mission" -- all of the combat troops withdrawn within 16 months. Why bother traveling to Iraq and consulting with commanders on the ground, if you've already decided on a new mission? Q: In 2004, you called it unwise to announce a timetable. By 2008, however, you announce a 16-month timetable. Only a few days ago, your top campaign strategist stated that you were "not wedded" to that timetable. The next day, you reiterated your 16-month timetable, but added it's important not to "undo" our gains. Isn't this confusing? Q: On Iran, you criticized Bush for leaving all options on the table up to and including a "military option." And during the campaign season, you criticized Sen. Clinton for voting to call the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terror organization. But you later said that, as to Iran, all military options are on the table, and said that you consider the Revolutionary Guard a terror organization. Did the facts change or the politics change? Q: You announced support for a two-state solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians, with Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. The next day, you reversed course, leaving the disposition of Jerusalem a matter to be negotiated between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Can you clarify? Q: You said you would sit down, without preconditions, with leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and Kim Jong Il of North Korea. You later agreed to hold such talks only under prearranged conditions. You further stated that such talks would occur only when and if you choose to hold them. Again, please clarify. Q: You point to Kennedy's 1961 summit with Khrushchev, held without preconditions. But Kennedy's secretary of State, Dean Rusk, advised against the meeting, and Kennedy later declared the talks a disaster. Many historians say that Khrushchev sized up Kennedy as a novice, which emboldened Khrushchev in building the Berlin Wall and in putting missiles in Cuba. Is it wise to hold up the Kennedy/Khrushchev summit as a model? Q: The Canadians recently agreed to accept 550 tons of yellowcake from Iraq. The Associated Press called it the remaining portion of Saddam Hussein's "nuclear program." David Kay, the weapons hunter, found no stockpiles of WMD, but maintained that Saddam Hussein possessed the intent and capacity to restart his chemical and biological program following the lifting of sanctions. Was President Bush, therefore, correct in saying that Saddam posed a "grave and gathering threat"? Q: Before you joined the Senate, you said that you opposed this war. But you later said that you understood how and why your Senate colleagues voted for the war, that they were "privy" to national security information you did not have. You also said the vote must have been "difficult." Your nomination opponents Dodd, Biden, Edwards and Clinton -- all in the Senate at the time -- voted for the war. How can you be so certain that had you been in the Senate, you would have voted against the war? Q: Some argue that if the United States does not attack Iran before they get a nuclear weapon, Israel will. Do you believe this is true? If so, what will the U.S. do, especially since many will blame the U.S. anyway? Q: In stating your intention to end the Iraq war, you say it costs $10 billion per month. But you, as does John McCain, intend to leave a "residual force." Can you give us the size of that force, and provide a cost estimate? Q: Since the surge, 15 of the 18 benchmarks have been met. The Sunnis, who boycotted Parliament, have now rejoined it. Polls show Iraqis more optimistic about their country's future than Americans are about ours. At the provincial level, oil revenues are being shared, and Iraq's oil production is at a postwar high. But for the surge, wouldn't things in Iraq now be substantially worse? Q: You opposed the Iraq war and the surge. If you had gotten your way, wouldn't al-Maliki and other members of the Iraqi government, with whom you have met, be in exile, in jail or dead? Q: New York Times reporter John Burns estimates that under Saddam Hussein -- through war and terror -- up to a million Iraqis may have died. Is the world better off without Saddam Hussein? Q: We have not been hit on American soil in the seven years since 9/11. In the last five years, no major American facility in the entire world has sustained a terror attack. Does President Bush deserve any credit for this? Q: Estimates for the monetary cost of 9/11 range from $600 billion to $1 trillion. Is it not possible, just possible, that Bush's actions -- including beefing up Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, increased surveillance, and especially the war in Iraq -- have prevented another 9/11?
Wednesday, July 23, 2008 Burt Prelutsky A Few More Reasons To Oppose Obama Because there is so much about Barack Obama that I find personally offensive -- things ranging from his friends and religious mentors to his obvious arrogance and his wife -- I have rarely brought up his politics. Partly thatâs because his support of leftist policies arenât all that much different from Hillary Clintonâs or any other liberal in the U.S. Senate, and partly because I tend to think that when electing a president, who must not only serve as head of the executive branch of the federal government but as a living symbol of the country, character and values trumps his position on a handful of current issues. But thatâs not to suggest that issues donât count. That is particularly true when it comes to such matters as national security, the economy and how best to conduct the war on Islamic terrorism. In the case of Sen. Obama, there is nothing to suggest that his platform in any way offsets his character deficiencies. For one thing, in spite of history showing us that lowering taxes boosts the nationâs economy, which is only logical, Obama, like every other liberal, wants them raised. Instead of dealing with that salient fact, he promotes class warfare by parroting the Leftâs line that lowering taxes only helps the wealthy. He insists that he was prescient in opposing the invasion of Iraq, but has never said how he would have dealt with Saddam Husseinâs brutal regime. Embargos, perhaps? We all saw how well those worked. But I suppose the oil-for-food scandal and Husseinâs bribing France, Germany, Russia and certain mucky mucks at the U.N. with sweetheart oil deals somehow slipped his mind, just as Jeremiah Wrightâs racist screeds did. Iâm sure that President Obama would be very respectful of the United Nations, no doubt following their lead when it came to conducting foreign policy. It truly amazes me when people continue pinning their hopes on that corrupt organization when it did nothing to save lives in Rwanda or Darfur, and recently twiddled its thumbs while tinhorn gangster Robert Mugabe hung on to power in Zimbabwe by killing off the opposition. Speaking of Africa, when are we going to wean the dark continent? Are we ever going to get over this nutty notion that we have an obligation to keep pumping money down that particular sewer? Itâs bad enough that George Bush is convinced that billions of American tax dollars -- money that could better be spent trying to cure Parkinsonâs, Alzheimerâs and ALS -- should be squandered dealing with AIDS in Africa, but Obama has already endorsed the U.N.-inspired giveaway known as the Global Poverty Act. Itâs estimated that filling this particular Christmas stocking would run us $845 billion. Worse yet, most of this largesse would wind up in the pockets or Swiss bank accounts of those various thugs, such as Omar al-Bashir, Teodoro Obiang Mbasogo, Isayas Afeworki and the aforementioned Robert Mugabe, who run Africa the way that Al Capone ran Chicago. Finally, itâs no business of mine how much of their millions Mr. And Mrs. Obama send to his relatives in Kenya, but I see no good reason why the Prelutskys should have to shell out a plugged nickel.
Meanwhile, will anyone ask McCain when he will stop regularly referring to "Czechoslovakia" since it hasn't existed for decades? And this one actually made me laugh out loud: "Q: Estimates for the monetary cost of 9/11 range from $600 billion to $1 trillion. Is it not possible, just possible, that Bush's actions -- including beefing up Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, increased surveillance, and especially the war in Iraq -- have prevented another 9/11?" LOL. From the guy who let the first one happen on his watch, who passed the Saudi Visa-Express program, took more vacation time than any two presidents combined, and then increased terrorism incidents far beyond what they were before 2003.
hapa: ] Nice dodge. Dodge of what -- you said you want Obama to be asked those questions. I just got a kick out of the idea that Obama would be weak on terror, when Bush has nutured and grown terror like it's a Ficus plant.
Since you want us to answer the questions: hapa: " Q: Before your trip to Iraq, you said that you intend to give the military a "new mission" -- all of the combat troops withdrawn within 16 months. Why bother traveling to Iraq and consulting with commanders on the ground, if you've already decided on a new mission?" Because one is a strategy and one is a tactic. Pulling out is a strategy. how to pull out and from where and how to turn over power are tactics. http://www.geocities.com/wallstreet/8925/stratact.htm
hapa: "Q: In 2004, you called it unwise to announce a timetable. By 2008, however, you announce a 16-month timetable. Only a few days ago, your top campaign strategist stated that you were "not wedded" to that timetable. The next day, you reiterated your 16-month timetable, but added it's important not to "undo" our gains. Isn't this confusing?" He was asked that question: "We're going to try this again. Apparently I wasn't clear enough this morning on my position with respect to the war in Iraq. ... I have said throughout this campaign that ... I would bring our troops home at a pace of one to two brigades per month and at that pace we would have our combat troops out in 16 months. That position has not changed. I have not equivocated on that position. I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position. "What I said this morning and what I will repeat because it's consistent with what I've said over the last two years is that in putting this plan together, I will always listen to the advice of commanders on the ground, but that ultimately, I'm the person who is making the strategic decisions." Strategy versus tactics. See above.
hapa: "Q: On Iran, you criticized Bush for leaving all options on the table up to and including a "military option." And during the campaign season, you criticized Sen. Clinton for voting to call the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terror organization. But you later said that, as to Iran, all military options are on the table, and said that you consider the Revolutionary Guard a terror organization. Did the facts change or the politics change?" Also, already addressed: "The Obama campaign responded that their problem with that resolution, sponsored by senators Kyl and Lieberman, had not been the designation of the Iranian guard as a terrorist group, but the idea that it committed American troops in Iraq to countering Iranian influence." http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-plays-defense-against-mccains-iran-barbs/79107/
hapa: "Q: You announced support for a two-state solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians, with Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. The next day, you reversed course, leaving the disposition of Jerusalem a matter to be negotiated between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Can you clarify?" "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel - and it must remain undivided," -- Barack Obama He then said it was up to them to decide. Might be backtracking, but ultimately seems reasonable enough.