Obama rejects McCain’s proposal for a joint trip to Iraq

posted at 7:20 pm on May 27, 2008 by Allahpundit

Even more amusing than Maverick’s savviness in forcing this choice on him is TPM straining to spin it as some sort of manifestation of principle — a standard Obama reaction whenever he weasels out of some tough decision, belied most recently by his pathetic reclamation of the flag lapel pin just in time for the general election. Spokesman Bill Burton:

John McCain’s proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don’t need any more ‘Mission Accomplished’ banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq’s leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge. The American people don’t want any more false promises of progress, they deserve a real debate about a war that has overstretched our military, and cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer.

If they’re worried about the military giving them a dog-and-pony show, the answer isn’t to decline the trip but to counterpropose a more comprehensive trip than even McCain’s suggesting and turn it into a real fact-finding mission. Don’t spend two hours looking at charts with Petraeus. Take four or five days; go to Basra and Mosul. If they simply can’t suspend campaigning for that long, send a joint team of advisors from both sides. He won’t do it because he’s afraid of what he might hear, which goes back to a point I’ve been making ever since the Jamil Hussein saga: The left would have you believe Iraq hawks can’t admit that any aspect of the war might be going badly, but the opposite has always been more nearly true. For purposes of the Narrative, it’s doves who can’t admit that any aspect of the war might be going better, as if to acknowledge that the surge has helped to improve security or that the Iraqi army is performing better than expected lately or that plenty of Shiites are tired of Sadr’s crap would be to validate neoconservatism or somehow tacitly rubber-stamp an invasion of Iran. So how about it, Barry? Break the mold. I’m sure there’ll be plenty of grim news in the briefings too to help take the sting out of the reports of progress. Exit question: How on earth did we arrive at an election scenario where the hawk is trying to bait the dove into talking about Iraq?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

surrounded on May 27, 2008 at 9:11 PM

Enjoy that glass of wine my friend… For what’s it worth; your input is always enjoyable.

Keemo on May 27, 2008 at 9:27 PM

Two decommissioned carriers, Kennedy and Kitty Hawk….that’s 10,000 right there.

Limerick on May 27, 2008 at 9:11 PM

Sounds about right.

MB4 on May 27, 2008 at 9:30 PM

Nelsa on May 27, 2008 at 9:25 PM

Launched but not commissioned yet. Still with the welders and plank owner crew. She is due to commission next year.

Limerick on May 27, 2008 at 9:31 PM

No one is actually suprised I suppose?

Hog Wild on May 27, 2008 at 9:32 PM

Sorry MB4, obviously my comment went right over your head.

Keemo on May 27, 2008 at 9:00 PM

Sorry but no, obviously I recognized your

Extremely foolish comment.

Keemo on May 27, 2008 at 8:21 PM

for what it was – vacuous.

MB4 on May 27, 2008 at 9:33 PM

Nelsa on May 27, 2008 at 9:25 PM

Just checked with the Navy and she is doing shakedown and work ups, so she is partially crewed. Good catch!

Limerick on May 27, 2008 at 9:34 PM

BTW Keemo, your

obviously my comment went right over your head.

was vacuous too. You are on a roll.

MB4 on May 27, 2008 at 9:35 PM

While your are busy messaging yourself (a legend in your own mind) MB; how bout addressing this part of the comment…

And Bush II has had almost 7 and a half years to build it back up.

MB4 on May 27, 2008 at 7:39 PM

Now there was a comment totally outside the realm of “vacuous”! How bout elaborating on that statement; while your at it, maybe you can tie the information into the topic.

Keemo on May 27, 2008 at 9:00 PM

Keemo on May 27, 2008 at 9:41 PM

Limerick on May 27, 2008 at 9:34 PM

Thanks. Also I believe the USS Ronald Reagan was commissioned in in 2003. That is two new carriers and 2 for the bone yard. -10,00 + 10,000 is a wash.

Sounds like you have a better handle on it than I ever could though.

Nelsa on May 27, 2008 at 9:44 PM

Definition:

1. inane: lacking ideas or intelligence, or showing such a lack
a vacuous remark

2. idle: lacking attention, concentration, or serious thought
a vacuous stare

3. lacking content: having no content or substance ( archaic )

[Mid-17th century. Latin vacuus "empty"]

If your

Extremely foolish comment.

and your

obviously my comment went right over your head

were not vacuous, Keemo, I don’t know what it would take to be so, I really don’t.

Well maybe this one, your most vacuous, so far anyway.

While your are busy messaging yourself (a legend in your own mind)

MB4 on May 27, 2008 at 9:51 PM

John McCain’s proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don’t need any more ‘Mission Accomplished’ banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq’s leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge. The American people don’t want any more false promises of progress, they deserve a real debate about a war that has overstretched our military, and cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer.

Liberal code for weak coward.

Texyank on May 27, 2008 at 9:55 PM

He’s afraid of running into the Muslims who will enforce the penalty for deserting Islam.

malkinmania on May 27, 2008 at 9:59 PM

Maybe he can point out to McCain, the 57 muslim states. Oh…look..John theres number 42….

malkinmania on May 27, 2008 at 9:59 PM

Nelsa on May 27, 2008 at 9:44 PM

The JFK needed to go and the GHW Bush and the Gerald Ford will be commissioned soon.

Squid Shark on May 27, 2008 at 10:12 PM

Squid Shark on May 27, 2008 at 10:12 PM

I forgot about the Ford. I know that Jacksonville hopes that a new carrier will end up in Mayport.

My Father retired off the Shang at Mayport.

Funny how all the new Carriers are named after Republican presidents. :):) The USS Clinton might be a Tug. ;)

Nelsa on May 27, 2008 at 10:21 PM

Nelsa on May 27, 2008 at 10:21 PM

Ha, the John Brimingham “Time” trilogy has a carrier named for the assasinated 44th pres, Hillary Clinton who apparently signed order authorizing battlefield execution of war criminals and field torture of the especially heinous ones.

Squid Shark on May 27, 2008 at 10:30 PM

Squid Shark on May 27, 2008 at 10:12 PM

Nelsa on May 27, 2008 at 10:21 PM

Yeah, what happened to the old Navy superstition about renaming a ship? The USS John F Kennedy was supposed to be the USS Kitty Hawk. She earned her name ‘Can Opener’ from running down a cruiser and and destroyer. Now we have the USS GHW Bush. She was supposed to be the USS Lexington.

Bad mojo.

Limerick on May 27, 2008 at 10:32 PM

Exit question: How on earth did we arrive at an election scenario where the hawk is trying to bait the dove into talking about Iraq?

We won.

Diogenes of Sinope on May 27, 2008 at 10:34 PM

now you’re talking bro

windansea on May 27, 2008 at 10:37 PM

Limerick on May 27, 2008 at 10:32 PM

Politics?

Nelsa on May 27, 2008 at 10:39 PM

Limerick on May 27, 2008 at 10:32 PM

Well I hate ships that deviate from the Naming scheme

Carriers should be Presidents (except the Big E)
DDG’s should be Naval Heroes
FFG’s Medal of Honor folks
SSN, Cities
SSBN, States
LHD’s Battles or WWII Carriers
PC’s, different typed of storms
Mine hunters, silly British Ship names
Mine sweeps, birds

ETC

Squid Shark on May 27, 2008 at 10:41 PM

Nelsa on May 27, 2008 at 10:39 PM

Yeah…unfortunately. I know GHWB was a carrier pilot and all but the USS Lexington is an old and venerable name.

Oh well…

back on topic:

There is no need for Obama to go and see anything. The Dems have built their mountain on Bush’s War and cannot retreat from that position.

Limerick on May 27, 2008 at 10:42 PM

Carter has a sub
Ford, Bush, Kennedy all got carriers

There is only one Naval Officer who was president without a ship…

Richard
Millhouse
Nixon

Squid Shark on May 27, 2008 at 10:44 PM

Squid Shark on May 27, 2008 at 10:44 PM

Lyndon
Baines
Johnson

Limerick on May 27, 2008 at 10:47 PM

Limerick on May 27, 2008 at 10:47 PM

Ahhh he has a Military Sealift Command Ship, but I guess it does not count.

Squid Shark on May 27, 2008 at 10:49 PM

Squid Shark on May 27, 2008 at 10:49 PM

Lim drops another one! Thanks Squid!:)

Limerick on May 27, 2008 at 10:50 PM

Johnson has a space center, that is enough, since all the best astronauts were squiddies.

Squid Shark on May 27, 2008 at 11:10 PM

I thought that was named after Magic Johnson

malkinmania on May 27, 2008 at 11:22 PM

I thought that was named after Magic Johnson

malkinmania on May 27, 2008 at 11:22 PM

That would be the Clinton Space Center…. ;)

Nelsa on May 27, 2008 at 11:25 PM

Carter has a sub


Yep. He just re-surfaced somewhere over in the Mideast where he takes pride in aiding and comforting the enemy once again.

Travis1 on May 27, 2008 at 11:25 PM

Travis1 on May 27, 2008 at 11:25 PM

Calm down, the USS CARTER is a fine warship with a proud crew, its not their fault.

Squid Shark on May 27, 2008 at 11:52 PM

This is just another distraction that doesn’t help Michelle’s kids. Besides, he learns all he needs to know about the war from MSNBC. I guess Olbermann will be preparing the PDBs when the Messiah assumes office.

CP on May 27, 2008 at 11:59 PM

Obama doesn’t need to actually visit Iraq to know the situation there, he has a crack team to inform him of the pertinent details.

Besides, Obama had a great-uncle who served in the army which means he is now an expert on military matters. This isn’t 2004, America no longer requires a combat vet for President now that the roles have been switched.

Bishop on May 28, 2008 at 1:05 AM

So much for Obama “reaching across the isle” and being post partisan.

jharada on May 28, 2008 at 2:06 AM

So the messiah will meet with terrorists and rogue nations but not with our troops in harms way?

Maybe Hillary knows something about June that shes not telling… one can only hope

Viper1 on May 28, 2008 at 6:43 AM

Exit question: How on earth did we arrive at an election scenario where the hawk is trying to bait the dove into talking about Iraq?

Because Barack Obama is a stupid rookie who thinks his support of universal health care is a strength, that problems as large as Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers can just be jedi-mind-tricked out of (that being his experience with his clueless supporters), cannot speak when he’s not being fed lines by a teleprompter, and is in general praying he can pull a JFK to McCain’s Nixon.

Too bad for Obama that people outside of hardcore JFK fanatics at least respected JFK. Obama is an unknown featherweight whose only known administrative strength is “organizing communities,” whatever that means.

BKennedy on May 28, 2008 at 6:44 AM

Coward

Viper1 on May 28, 2008 at 6:45 AM

Bi-partisan has always meant Republicans joining with Democrats to enact the Democratic agenda.

MarkTheGreat on May 28, 2008 at 6:58 AM

No one is actually suprised I suppose?

Hog Wild on May 27, 2008 at 9:32 PM

No I posted the following, it was a no-brainer.

…“We have generals in the battlefield to give us what information we need. I don’t need to go to Iraq and grandstand for picture ops, I know what the public knows, it was and is a war that costs too much in lives, money. This has hurt families, and it is an economic disaster. The pain is here at home, that is where we need to start healing the country”
“Going to Iraq, may be great publicity for McCain, but it won’t give us our economy back, put people back to work, make congress less divisive, make us more oil independent…it won’t resolve any of the problems we are facing today, photo ops in Iraq won’t cure our problems here in the U.S. We need solutions not P.R.”
See, how easy it is to get out of it?

right2bright on May 27, 2008 at 9:44 AM

right2bright on May 28, 2008 at 7:59 AM

USS William J. Clinton
USS Barack H. Obama

abcurtis on May 28, 2008 at 8:08 AM

I think McCain was probably serious and wanted the two candidates to go to Iraq as a show of strength.

tomas on May 28, 2008 at 8:13 AM

Funny how all the new Carriers are named after Republican presidents. :):) The USS Clinton might be a Tug. ;)

Nelsa on May 27, 2008 at 10:21 PM

Only because there’s no such thing as a Jerk Boat. :|

Patrick S on May 28, 2008 at 8:24 AM

A little walk down memory lane MB4…

Imagine what would have happened if President Roosevelt had not recognized a connection between Nazism and the German troops killing our soldiers. Immediately after 9/11, Bush morphed into some sort of Islamic scholar, compelled to repeat, like a parakeet, ”Islam is the Religion of Peace”, over and over and over again.
- Mordecai

President Bush is undermining criticism vital to the survival of Western civilization and empowering terrorist leaders by proclaiming Islam a “religion of peace,” says one of the most outspoken critics to emerge from the Muslim world in recent years.
- WND

Has the administration’s policy of “surge till they (Iraqis) merge” changed to “keep surging because they’re not merging”? Unclear. At the same time, the new framework they envision will not set troop levels, make security commitments or authorize permanent bases in Iraq — “something neither we nor Iraqis want,” they added.

Me neither. U.S. forces should not ordinarily be engaged in nation-building — sorry, nation-stabilizing — nor should they ever be engaged in Sharia-nation-stabilizing, which is my core problem with our overall strategy in constitutionally Sharia-supreme Iraq as well as constitutionally Sharia-supreme Afghanistan (not to mention the constitutionally Sharia-supreme Palestinian Authority), but that’s another column.

In 1945, our government was of one mind regarding state Shintoism. Lewis quotes Secretary of State James F. Byrnes, who wrote: “Shintoism, insofar as it is a religion of individual Japanese, is not to be interfered with. Shintoism, however, insofar as it is directed by the Japanese government, and as a measure enforced from above by the government, is to be done away with. … There will be no place for Shintoism in the schools. Shintoism as a state religion — National Shinto, that is — will go. … Our policy on this goes beyond Shinto. … The dissemination of Japanese militaristic and ultra-nationalistic ideology in any form will be completely suppressed.”

And it was, with fabulous results.

Obviously, there have been no analogous U.S. efforts to “de-jihadize” Islamic public culture even as the United States has spent lives, limbs, money and years trying, essentially, to stop the jihad in the Islamic Middle East — not even, to take a manageable example, in the U.S.-funded Palestinian Authority, where state-run media continue to incite Islamically motivated violence against Jews and Americans. And then there are all those U.S.-fostered constitutions that enshrine Sharia law — just the sort of ideological concession our forebears would never have made.
- Diana West (JWR)

MB4 on May 24, 2008 at 11:58 PM

I think with that post, you have officially become the poster child for self-parody.

Congrats.

Or, in terms you might better comprehend, my clueless young and foolish friend (if I may be permitted to parody the self-parodist):

“A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees.”
~ William Blake

“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool then to speak out and remove all doubt.”
~Abraham Lincoln

“Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools talk because they have to say something.”
~ Plato

“The trouble ain’t that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain’t distributed right.”
~ Mark Twain

—————–

No wonder you’re so fond of quoting Twain. If you have utterly no intellect and no means of expressing yourself, he certainly does the job admirably, doesn’t he?

He captures you in a way Plato can’t even touch.

In the unlikely event that you ever chose to think for yourself and quit quoting your intellectual superiors, I’d ask you just one question: I don’t wonder why you cheer so fervently against your own country – but I’d love to know why you take such joy in it.

Find me a good quote and get back to me on that.

Professor Blather on May 25, 2008 at 1:02 AM

MB4 on September 29, 2007 at 2:05 AM

I see you love a good beating in debate.

Your the one that has developed this unhealthy obsession for continually having some kind of “rematch” by hijacking threads, avoiding my comments directed to you, – with links, with facts – and denigrating my character.

Choose carefully, because I’ve got all weekend, next week, the following weekend, all next year….if you like getting flatfooted in debate that much.

Mcguyver on September 29, 2007 at 2:10 AM

Yep MB4, you’ve developed a keen mode of operation here at HA, one to proudly write home to mom about. These (2) folks captured your persona quite nicely; not real hard to see through such a shallow stream.

Keemo on May 28, 2008 at 8:25 AM

Shia, Kurds, Sunni, Christians. That place needs a Community Organizer™!

mred on May 27, 2008 at 7:39 PM

Heh.

Team Obambi — World Community Organizer!

techno_barbarian on May 28, 2008 at 9:20 AM

Poltroon Obama

maverick muse on May 28, 2008 at 9:25 AM

What an amazingly retarded idea.

It would be a huge waste of time and money that would put US soldiers at great risk guarding the both of them who would be delicious target for insurgents – who would have plenty of time to prepare – it’s not as if they could keep the dates of the trip secret. Flush this beyond stupid idea down the toilet.

Next.

Dave Rywall on May 28, 2008 at 9:32 AM

Isn’t this the same crap-weasel, who was trying to sell us a story about his Hero-Uncle who Liberated Auschwitz?

HooHah

franksalterego on May 28, 2008 at 10:57 AM

Carter has a sub

Squid Shark on May 27, 2008 at 10:44 PM

Ah, irony: A milque-toast peacenik appeasing leftist has one of the deadliest devices ever built named after him.

What an amazingly retarded idea.

It would be a huge waste of time and money that would put US soldiers at great risk guarding the both of them who would be delicious target for insurgents – who would have plenty of time to prepare – it’s not as if they could keep the dates of the trip secret. Flush this beyond stupid idea down the toilet.

Next.
Dave Rywall on May 28, 2008 at 9:32 AM

misterpeasea on May 28, 2008 at 11:06 AM

Effin’ checkmate, Barry!

omnipotent on May 28, 2008 at 11:21 AM

Oh misterpeasea – Do you know where I could find douchebag lessons? You seem to like a good person to ask.

Dave Rywall on May 28, 2008 at 11:22 AM

Obama can’t afford to be seen in Iraq next to McCain – the contrast would be too informative.

Think_b4_speaking on May 28, 2008 at 11:34 AM

McCain meant Iran. No, wait – Iraq. Yes. Iraq. That’s where the trouble is. Unless he meant Iran. So Iran it is. A trip to Iraq.

Dave Rywall on May 28, 2008 at 11:40 AM

Oh, the distractions. Distractions! Yes we can…

Wyznowski on May 28, 2008 at 12:04 PM

Obama won’t go to Iraq

Bawk bawk bawk bawk

indythinker on May 28, 2008 at 12:12 PM

The McHam (pronounced Mec-Ham) kick has scored!

HotAirJosef on May 28, 2008 at 1:22 PM

Shia, Kurds, Sunni, Christians. That place needs a Community Organizer™!

mred on May 27, 2008 at 7:39 PM

funny!

And a smart move by McCain–win/win for him, lose/lose for Obambi.

james23 on May 28, 2008 at 1:26 PM

If I was Hillary : I’d jump all over this, and throw myself on board a “Joint Bipartisan Fact Finding Mission” with John McCain, since Obama won’t go, to attempt to wriggle this nomination out of Obama’s hands

charlie36r on May 28, 2008 at 1:40 PM

…even tho she’s already been a while back

charlie36r on May 28, 2008 at 1:43 PM

Obama’s uncle already went to Iraq and after coming back and hanging out in the attic for a while, he told Barry all about it so why does he need to go? So he wants to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, that doesn’t mean he should actually interact with our soldiers in harms way or go to a place where he may have an effect on policy there, does it? Jeez. You guys are so old fashioned.

foxforce91 on May 28, 2008 at 1:46 PM

BHO thinks his white grandpa and white great uncle serving in wwii qualifys him to be the Commander in Chief…what a moronic joke that is….

areseaoh on May 28, 2008 at 1:48 PM

A reminder of what McCain is like.

January 12, 2007: WASHINGTON – Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) reintroduced the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act (S. 280) today with his longstanding ally, Senator John McCain (R-AZ). Co-sponsoring the bill are Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), who had co-sponsored the 2005 version of the bill, and Senators Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Susan Collins (R-ME). The most bipartisan of the Senate proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across all major sectors of the US economy, the new bill quickly won endorsements from the National Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense, and the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

flenser on May 28, 2008 at 2:13 PM

Why meet with our Generals in the Field? Once Obama is President he will create a Global feeling of Warm and Fuzzy. All will be at peace and the Military will be disbanded and the ranks of the Peace Corps will swell to unprecedented levels. There will be no need for a military.

\sarc.

Swinehound on May 28, 2008 at 3:36 PM

Nelsa on May 27, 2008 at 10:21 PM

Nah… the USS Clinton would have to be a submarine, cause you know… has to be somthing that would go down on…

OK, I’ll shut up now…

Romeo13 on May 28, 2008 at 4:02 PM

Funny how all the new Carriers are named after Republican presidents. :):) The USS Clinton might be a Tug. ;)

Nelsa on May 27, 2008 at 10:21 PM

Or the USS Clinton might be a dingy.

Oink on May 28, 2008 at 4:46 PM

I see you love a good beating in debate.

Haven’t gotten one here yet and I doubt very much that I ever will. Yawn. If I ever do it won’t be from a last stringer like you. BTW, I see that you left off my response to “Professor Blather’s” vile or drunk accusation. Golly, I wonder why that was.

Yep MB4, you’ve developed a keen mode of operation here at HA, one to proudly write home to mom about. These (2) folks captured your persona quite nicely; not real hard to see through such a shallow stream.

Keemo on May 28, 2008 at 8:25 AM

My mom is dead you childish retard and your comments stalking me are becoming ever more obsessive and vacuous. Please try to do better.

MB4 on May 29, 2008 at 7:04 AM

A little walk down memory lane MB4…

Keemo on May 28, 2008 at 8:25 AM

I don’t know you that well and yet you go tap, tap, tap yet again.

Are you Larry Craig? Really, are you?

MB4 on May 29, 2008 at 7:12 AM

Comment pages: 1 2