McCain: Obama Will Not Meet With Gen Petraeus

[red states rule]

At least John McCain is calling Obama on his failure to meet with Gen Petraeus and his refuasl to go to Iraq with Sen McCain

Let me get this straight, Obaba will sit down with Little Adopf from Iran, but will not sit down with Gen Petraeus who is the leader of the troops in Iraq?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/McCain_presses_Obama_on_not_meeting_with_Petraeus. html

[Classact]

At least John McCain is calling Obama on his failure to meet with Gen Petraeus and his refuasl to go to Iraq with Sen McCain

Let me get this straight, Obaba will sit down with Little Adopf from Iran, but will not sit down with Gen Petraeus who is the leader of the troops in Iraq?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/McCain_presses_Obama_on_not_meeting_with_Petraeus. htmlI heard last night that he has realized he is painted himself into a corner and has put the trip on his to do list. It is all a matter of priorities.

[Dilloduck]

I heard last night that he has realized he is painted himself into a corner and has put the trip on his to do list. It is all a matter of priorities.

How many corners has this fool painted himself into by now ? At least so far it's only his room and not America.

[theHawk]

At least John McCain is calling Obama on his failure to meet with Gen Petraeus and his refuasl to go to Iraq with Sen McCain

Let me get this straight, Obaba will sit down with Little Adopf from Iran, but will not sit down with Gen Petraeus who is the leader of the troops in Iraq?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/McCain_presses_Obama_on_not_meeting_with_Petraeus. html


This was really a good move on the part of McCain, I never would of thought of that. Its just amazing what the reaction was from the Obama campaign. "Its just a political stunt by McCain!" Pretty damned pathetic of Obama. That shitbag liberal can't help but to dig himself deeper into a hole.
What happened to him being the great "unifier"?

I have to wonder if Obama does ever visit the troops, will they be fainting at his mere presence? I think not! :laugh2:

[namvet]

Obama Camp: Trip Overseas Is 'Under Consideration'

but right now he's to damned busy. probably can't find it on the map............

story (story)

[red states rule]

This was really a good move on the part of McCain, I never would of thought of that. Its just amazing what the reaction was from the Obama campaign. "Its just a political stunt by McCain!" Pretty damned pathetic of Obama. That shitbag liberal can't help but to dig himself deeper into a hole.
What happened to him being the great "unifier"?

I have to wonder if Obama does ever visit the troops, will they be fainting at his mere presence? I think not! :laugh2:

You have to rememebr, Obama is to busy getting the endorsements of Hamas, John Ayers, Castro, Daniel Ortega, and Hugo Chavez; and reaching out to terrorists to sit down and have a chat; to spend his time with the leader of our troops in Iraq

It shows where the troops are on Obama's list of priorities

[red states rule]

How many corners has this fool painted himself into by now ? At least so far it's only his room and not America.

Maybe this is one of the reasons Obama does not want to go to Iraq and see first hand what is happening there


Violence in Iraq drops to 4-year low, U.S. says
A military spokesman says militants are on the run but remain a "very lethal threat." The 300 violent incidents recorded last week compare with 1,600 nearly a year ago.
By Alexandra Zavis
Los Angeles Times
Article Last Updated: 05/25/2008 11:10:45 PM MDT


BAGHDAD — The U.S. military distanced itself Sunday from an ambassador's remarks suggesting that al-Qaeda in Iraq might be close to defeat, but officials noted that the number of attacks by militants in the past week dropped to a level not seen since March 2004.

Navy Rear Adm. Patrick Driscoll, a military spokesman, said at a news conference that the militants "certainly are off-balance and on the run," but he cautioned that al-Qaeda in Iraq remains a "very lethal threat."

About 300 violent incidents were recorded in the seven-day period that ended Friday, down from a weekly high of nearly 1,600 in mid-June last year, according to the military.

The announcement appeared aimed at allaying fears that an uprising by militiamen loyal to radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr could unravel security gains since 28,500 additional American troops were deployed in Iraq in a buildup that reached its height in June.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_9379642?source=rss

[Yurt]

this guy is supposedly going to be the next CNC and he will not visit the troops and calls a request by mccain to visit the troops/leaders a political stunt....this guy is an elitist snob who makes john kerry look blue collar

[red states rule]

this guy is supposedly going to be the next CNC and he will not visit the troops and calls a request by mccain to visit the troops/leaders a political stunt....this guy is an elitist snob who makes john kerry look blue collar

Tried to rep you - I owe you


Also, if Obama went over to Iraq, saw the progress frist hand - how would be break the news to the Moveon.org nuts, the Daily Kook Kos memebrs, and the anti war left?

The bottom line is Yurt, no matter how many facts are presented, no matter much evidence is brought out - it will not change the minds of the libs. They have their predetermined view on Iraq, and facts, and truth will not sway them

Obama is one of those idiots

[mundame]

I think the Right wants Oobleck to go to Iraq so someone will shoot him.


It could happen, too.

[red states rule]

I think the Right wants Oobleck to go to Iraq so someone will shoot him.


It could happen, too.

What a way to spin. Like you, Obama has no intention of learning the facts on how the US is winning in Iraq

[mundame]

What a way to spin. Like you, Obama has no intention of learning the facts on how the US is winning in Iraq


There are no facts that we're winning in Iraq, since we clearly aren't.

[red states rule]

There are no facts that we're winning in Iraq, since we clearly aren't.

I have linked the facts, but like most appeasers and Bush haters you REFUSE to accept the facts.

[mundame]

I have linked the facts, but like most appeasers and Bush haters you REFUSE to accept the facts.


That's because they aren't "facts," they are just your incorrect opinions, and hardly anyone is left in the country who agrees with you.

That's why a damn socialist is probably going to be president: because a lot of people have decided electing him is the only way to get us out of these terrible losing wars.

[red states rule]

That's because they aren't "facts," they are just your incorrect opinions, and hardly anyone is left in the country who agrees with you.

That's why a damn socialist is probably going to be president: because a lot of people have decided electing him is the only way to get us out of these terrible losing wars.

Numbers showing how violence is down, and how AQ terrorists have been driven out of Iraq are not opinions - they are facts

You can stick your fingers in your ears, and close your eyes - but it will not change the facts

That is why Barry will no go to Iraq. Like you he would rather surrender then fight

[mundame]

Numbers showing how violence is down, and how AQ terrorists have been driven out of Iraq are not opinions - they are facts



What they actually are is a pile of lies.

I don't believe any news out of Iraq the Army puts out --------- it's all lies and disinformation and propaganda. Like everything the Bush administration says.


If we were winning, it would be obvious.

It always is. Whether we win or whether we are bogged down losing, it's always real, real obvious.

[red states rule]

What they actually are is a pile of lies.

I don't believe any news out of Iraq the Army puts out --------- it's all lies and disinformation and propaganda. Like everything the Bush administration says.


If we were winning, it would be obvious.

It always is. Whether we win or whether we are bogged down losing, it's always real, real obvious.

thank you for proving my point. Some people can't be reasoned with, and they will never admit they are wrong no matter how much proof is provided

You should support Obama - he is alot like you. Facts and truth do not matter to him either

[Yurt]

There are no facts that we're winning in Iraq, since we clearly aren't.

is hussein president?

[mundame]

is hussein president?


No, Yurt, I'm pretty sure he's dead.................

The war, however, goes on year after year after pointless year anyway.

Say, is that the secret?

When we kill Hussein, we can leave??

Maybe someone should tell the president Saddam is dead!!!! Could you do it?

[theHawk]

That's why a damn socialist is probably going to be president: because a lot of people have decided electing him is the only way to get us out of these terrible losing wars.

Barry and the Dems are not going to end the war.

[red states rule]

Barry and the Dems are not going to end the war.

One Dem admitted the Democrats lied about ending the war in the o6 campaign - so why not lie about in the 08 campaign?

Dem voters are easily fooled and roped in

[Yurt]

No, Yurt, I'm pretty sure he's dead.................

The war, however, goes on year after year after pointless year anyway.

Say, is that the secret?

When we kill Hussein, we can leave??

Maybe someone should tell the president Saddam is dead!!!! Could you do it?

so then we accomplished our mission. good point. did all fighting stop immediately in germany and japan after their surrender? have we left germany or japan?

[red states rule]

Vets are asking Obama to go to Iraq. I wonder if he will listen

http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/

[mundame]

did all fighting stop immediately in germany and japan after their surrender?


Yes. That's what "surrender" MEANS.

We should do more of that fighting till the enemy surrenders stuff --------- instead of pretending we're "helping" our bestest little new friends. That's where we bog down.



have we left germany or japan?


No, we decided to occupy them so they couldn't rise again; we were getting seriously fed up with Germany and Japan both. It was only too apparent we couldn't leave the occupation with France or anyone else; that sure didn't work after WWI. Good decision. And Japan and Germany didn't say boo to a goose about it, either: and why? Because they were well and truly DEFEATED, that's why.

NOT something that anyone can say about Iraq or Afghanistan, as they are fighting on persistently year after year.



Guys? It's actually quite simple: if the enemy is fighting, that means we haven't won. That's why Bush isn't able to fool hardly anyone. We can SEE they are still fighting, and that we haven't won. In FIVE YEARS.

[Yurt]

mundame;252645]Yes. That's what "surrender" MEANS.

We should do more of that fighting till the enemy surrenders stuff --------- instead of pretending we're "helping" our bestest little new friends. That's where we bog down.

there were insurgencies in both germany and japan, i can't believe you don't know your history...




No, we decided to occupy them so they couldn't rise again; we were getting seriously fed up with Germany and Japan both. It was only too apparent we couldn't leave the occupation with France or anyone else; that sure didn't work after WWI. Good decision. And Japan and Germany didn't say boo to a goose about it, either: and why? Because they were well and truly DEFEATED, that's why.

NOT something that anyone can say about Iraq or Afghanistan, as they are fighting on persistently year after year.



Guys? It's actually quite simple: if the enemy is fighting, that means we haven't won. That's why Bush isn't able to fool hardly anyone. We can SEE they are still fighting, and that we haven't won. In FIVE YEARS.[/QUOTE]

what you fail to realize is the major difference here. with germany and japan the uniformed army surrendered, which essentially happened in iraq. the fighting going on now is with non-uniformed fighters. pray tell how we get them to surrender when there is no apparent leader that is brave enough to show his face.

[mundame]

there were insurgencies in both germany and japan, i can't believe you don't know your history...


I do know my history. Do you? How many years did these "insurgencies" go on? Not too long, huh? Not longer than the war itself? Why, no.



what you fail to realize is the major difference here. with germany and japan the uniformed army surrendered, which essentially happened in iraq. the fighting going on now is with non-uniformed fighters. pray tell how we get them to surrender when there is no apparent leader that is brave enough to show his face.


They're so bad, they don't fight by the RULES!!! Really, how can you EXPECT our Army to win anything if the other side doesn't follow the RULES??????




[Sigh]

[Yurt]

I do know my history. Do you? How many years did these "insurgencies" go on? Not too long, huh? Not longer than the war itself? Why, no.





They're so bad, they don't fight by the RULES!!! Really, how can you EXPECT our Army to win anything if the other side doesn't follow the RULES??????




[Sigh]


you're missing the picture... it is not just rules, it is that they blend into the civilian sector, hence why they are called guerillas...how to propose we find every single non-uniformed fighter? do you have any idea how different fighting a guerilla war is from a conventional one? you should really do your homework...

it doesn't matter how long, the very fact that insurgencies continued after the surrender proves my point and shows you the error of your thinking.

[mundame]

The idea that nobody should blame Bush or the Army for losing because the mean ol' enemy won't follow the proper rules reminds me a lot of the argument that it's okay that Bush went to war because of WMD that never existed, because that was .......just a mistake!

And it's okay if someone takes the United States to war because he made a mistake!


That has always seemed to me probably the lamest argument I have ever heard about any military failure.

The Archduke Ferdinand's astoundingly bad security detail in Sarajevo, 1914;
The Charge of the Light Brigade because the general was tired and didn't want to listen to objections;
The radio operator at Pearl Harbor who told the officer there seemed to be a lot of planes approaching and was told never mind, they're probably ours -----


It all pales before the argument that it's okay that we went to war for a mistake.


Not that I believe it was a mistake, of course; it was a persistent propaganda attack by Bush against our nation. It was a lie all along, and he thought he could pull it off quick and cheap and all would be forgiven.


Whoops.

[red states rule]

I do know my history. Do you? How many years did these "insurgencies" go on? Not too long, huh? Not longer than the war itself? Why, no.





They're so bad, they don't fight by the RULES!!! Really, how can you EXPECT our Army to win anything if the other side doesn't follow the RULES??????




[Sigh]

I wonder what Obama and the anti war appeasers will say to the Iraq vets who want him to come to Iraq?

Will they allow their appeasement to drive them to say no?

http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/

[mundame]

you're missing the picture... it is not just rules, it is that they blend into the civilian sector, hence why they are called guerillas...how to propose we find every single non-uniformed fighter? do you have any idea how different fighting a guerilla war is from a conventional one?

Yurt, if we can't win, we shouldn't go to war.

It's a terrible mistake to lose a war.

[PostmodernProphet]

What they actually are is a pile of lies.

I don't believe any news out of Iraq the Army puts out --------- it's all lies and disinformation and propaganda. Like everything the Bush administration says.


If we were winning, it would be obvious.

It always is. Whether we win or whether we are bogged down losing, it's always real, real obvious.

I suspect Obama feels the same way....that is why he ought to go there and see.....

[red states rule]

Yurt, if we can't win, we shouldn't go to war.

It's a terrible mistake to lose a war.

It is also a terrible mistake not to pay attention to the facts that shows we are winning. Maybe you will learn from your mistakes Mundame

[mundame]

Maybe you will learn from your mistakes Mundame


I am learning. I voted for Bush in 2000, which pretty much trashed the country, and I'm not voting again till someone shows some actual ability and honor first.

[red states rule]

I am learning. I voted for Bush in 2000, which pretty much trashed the country, and I'm not voting again till someone shows some actual ability and honor first.

and surrender and appease to terrorists as well

[Yurt]

Yurt, if we can't win, we shouldn't go to war.

It's a terrible mistake to lose a war.

who says we cannot win? bush told all of us that the this would take some time and that many will grow tired of it. and we did win against the iraqi military, what is it you don't get about this. we are now in a police action more than a war. get it together and stop distorting facts.

[red states rule]

who says we cannot win? bush told all of us that the this would take some time and that many will grow tired of it. and we did win against the iraqi military, what is it you don't get about this. we are now in a police action more than a war. get it together and stop distorting facts.

She must get her war updates from Harry "the war is lost" Reid

[retiredman]

my guess is that General Petraeus will meet with President Obama whenever the President tells him to.:lol:

[red states rule]

Obama is showing how the left feels aboit the US military

Barry will meet with Little Adolf from Iran, but has no desire to see first hand the progress in Iran and sit down with the Commander of those troops