I long for a President who chooses his advisers well and then listens to them.

Well, Dave Noble… BHO sure ain’t your guy then. He voted yeah on Petraeus. He then gave a big foreign policy speech, *before* his Euro Lampoon vacation – i.e., nothing he would hear would change his mind. And since he choose not to meet with Petraeus when he was in the country, he’s not had the benefit of a one on one briefing since forming that opinion as an IL Senator. Events and times have changed… his opinion has not.

“Listening” entails engaging commanders and advisors in briefings… an event that BHO apparently considers an option in defining his policies.

So he goes to Iraq… meets Petraeus. He listened to his concerns, and wrote them off as it just doesn’t fit with his own plan.

After meeting with top U.S. military commanders and members of the Iraqi government, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said Monday his opposition to the surge and support for a firm timetable for the withdrawal of troops hasn’t changed.

~~~

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee met with Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of American troops in Iraq, and the architect of the troop surge strategy that Obama has opposed.

Obama and Petraeus have also staked out opposing positions on whether there should be a timetable for withdrawing American forces.

Obama said that in his meeting with Petraeus, the general discussed his “deep concerns” about “a timetable that doesn’t take into account what they anticipate might be a change in conditions.”

“My job is to think about the national security interests as a whole and to weigh and balance risks in Afghanistan and Iraq,” Obama said. “Their job is just to get the job done here, and I completely understand that.

~~~

Speaking about his support for a timetable for troop withdrawal, Obama said he wasn’t changing his position by saying he would take into account the assessment of military commanders on the ground.

“What I will refuse to do is to get boxed in into what I consider two false choices,” he said. “Either I have a rigid timeline, come hell or high water, and I am blind to anything that happens in the intervening 16 months, or, alternatively, I am completely deferring to whatever the commanders on the ground say, which is what George Bush says he’s doing, in which case I’m not doing my job as commander in chief. I’m essentially, simply rubber-stamping decisions that are made on the ground.

This proves that BHO is a wannabe Commander in Chief who:

1: doesn’t seek out one on one briefings before forming his own opinions, and
2: doesn’t change his opinion based on what his military commanders are telling him.

So I’d say, if you’re “longing” for a President who chooses his advisors well (and he did choose Petraeus, but you do inherit a great amount of military leadership with the job) and listens to them, you’re gonna be turning blue waiting for that with a President Obama. He’s like the typical 18 year old who knows everything.

The same can not be said of McCain.

I long for a President who chooses his advisers well and then listens to them. Hopefully we will one day soon have a coherent foreign policy. We won’t have a President first saying that anyone who harbors a terrorist is our enemy and then later calling a country that harbors the murderer of 9/11 our “strong ally.” When that day comes no one will be forced to engage in tortured analysis to defend an incoherent, inconsistent foreign policy. You misunderstand. It’s not that I don’t understand what you’re saying; it’s that I don’t understand why you would say it. Once again we should probably agree to disagree.

“The American officials also said there was new information showing that members of the Pakistani intelligence service were increasingly providing militants with details about the American campaign against them, in some cases allowing militants to avoid American missile strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas. ”

Yep… Pakistan’s govt is filled with corrupt officials in both the army and intelligence service. Then again, so is ours. The official govt position till remains a quasi-ally. However you and your boy, Obama, are eager to change that allied status… courtesy of the man you so love to hate, Dubya… back into a full fledged Muslim enemy with nukes. Brilliant.

They may not be a perfect ally, but they could damn sure be a perfect enemy.

If we found that Spain’s intelligence community was protecting jihadists, I assure you there would be hell to pay.

Are you suggesting the US would invade Spain?? Naw… can’t be. And BTW, Spain has it’s corruption and less than perfect cooperation too. But then Spain is not a predominately Muslim country with deep cultural differences with western culture.

Don’t dispair on ever understanding, Dave. I don’t expect you to “get it”… and frankly, you don’t need to. As long as our next POTUS and military leadership does understand their internal challenges, I’m content if you stay in the dark.

As far as being a “lie”, nope, just my opinion from what I’ve been reading lately..

I don’t require you to agree, Nobama is a major flip flopper and everyone sees it.. that’s ok too.

I’m outta here for the weekend..

I hope you have a great weekend DW…

You mean like the left complaining that Bush had a dui or maybe did coke…..

But,,,, I DRAW THE LINE AT HEROIN NOBAMA,,,, that’s ok,, no big deal??

That kind of lie?,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

WTF?

No, I mean like the lie of saying that the Left is only making Afghanistan a priority since we “won” in Iraq.

That was a pathetically obvious attempt to change the subject away from your lie.

You mean like the left complaining that Bush had a dui or maybe did coke…..

But,,,, I DRAW THE LINE AT HEROIN NOBAMA,,,, that’s ok,, no big deal??

That kind of lie?,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Looks like Barry may be jumping on the band wagon again anyway…

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20080729.aspx

http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=300669684393644&kw=Pakistan

I despair of ever understanding your position on Pakistan. You stretch and strain with your analogies to European countries. If we found that Spain’s intelligence community was protecting jihadists, I assure you there would be hell to pay. You might be interested in this:

“The American officials also said there was new information showing that members of the Pakistani intelligence service were increasingly providing militants with details about the American campaign against them, in some cases allowing militants to avoid American missile strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas. ”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/world/asia/01pstan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

If that is not “harboring” terrorists, we are in Wonderland again.

I still think it’s odd that before things started going better in Iraq that Afghanistan wasn’t important

This is just a bald-faced lie, and nothing more.

His flippin’ driver is worth everything we can throw at him, but Osama himself is not worth the trouble? What kind of upside-down thinking is that?

Explain this, if you would, please.

I still think it’s odd that before things started going better in Iraq that Afghanistan wasn’t important… now it’s the hot issue..
Typical libs..

And OBL is not the lone target… except maybe to the deluded DNC who thinks the war is won if we kill/capture OBL.

This is the same bullcrap that the Right has been spewing ever since Bush backed down on his “dead or alive” vow. If bin Laden’s not worth getting now, he never was. He still bears the same responsibility for the events that transpired that he ever did. His flippin’ driver is worth everything we can throw at him, but Osama himself is not worth the trouble? What kind of upside-down thinking is that?

Also: the “lone target” stuff is more Reich-wing straw-man flappage.

Live with the fact that Bush won’t do the right thing by America in re: bin Laden–for all his bluster, for all his faux-cowboy BS, when it became inconvenient to live up to his promise, he chose not to.

One would think that you Righties would call him on his flip-floppage, but that, too, would be inconvenient.

Hold on – Curbing nuclear proliferation is none of the US’s business. How ya’ figure that

You did not read correctly, Dave Noble. I did not say *I* thought that. I said… Hummm, okay. I’m trying to imagine the PM steering the conversation with the jr. Senator to one about … snip… all of which I would guess the PM would consider pertinent to his government, and none of Obama’s or the US’s business

My point was, and remains, that I doubt these are issues the PM brought up as he considers these the business of Pakistan. I also doubt the PM welcomed BHO’s opinions on Pakistan’s arsenal, human rights, or prosecution of the WOT.

Pakistan is likely harboring Bin Laden. Doesn’t that make it in the President’s own words our “enemy” and not our “strong ally.”

In a word, no.

There is a difference between a despotic government (Taliban/Afghanistan or Saddam/Iraq or Ahmadinejad/Qud or Syria/Hezbollah or Palestine/Hamas) harboring terrorists… and terrorists living in allied countries world wide. And OBL is not the lone target… except maybe to the deluded DNC who thinks the war is won if we kill/capture OBL.

We don’t go after Britain, and they have terrorist living there. We don’t go after ourselves, and terrorists are here. We don’t go after France, Spain, etal. Jihad elements are everywhere. However these nations cooperate in attempted control. Some admittedly better and more effectively than others. However Britan is not majority Muslim, as is Pakistan. This makes it much more delicate a relationship.

These countries are allies when they attempt some sort of prosecution and intel sharing. They are enemies when they refuse to cooperate and allow terrorists to proliferate.

Pakistan is a problem. The Muslims in that region don’t want to be seen as US puppets. And they don’t want jihad in their midst. Gilani’s coalition govt is trending towards the traditional NIMBY attitude… negotiate peace from militants in their own back yard, in exchange for turning a blind eye elsewhere. They are, just as they did in the past, finding this isn’t working well.

The Taliban and AQ are scooping up more and more territories. They break truces when the army moves in to stablize… taking hostages and trading them back for money and their own imprisoned fighters. This govt, like Musharraf, will have to find that same fine line to walk with aiding, and being aided by the US with jihad in their midst… and not suffering the ultimate wrath of the Muslim population for aligning themselves with the US. But the problems with the Taliban and AQ in Pakistan are growing daily… I have quite the archive going in my bookmarks.

But for certain the not so wonderful situation in Pakistan could be far worse by taking unilateral action and invading Pakistan’s borders. Obama is far more a cowboy than Bush with that nation. He talks tough love and threatens military to an ally, has been planning to abandon Iraq since 2006 at the height of their chaos, and is willing to take tea with Iran/Cuba and Venezuela. The difference is nothing short of remarkable. With BHO… he reserves his tough words for allies, not our enemies.

Hold on – Curbing nuclear proliferation is none of the US’s business. How ya’ figure that?

And it’s not surprising Gilani said his talk with the President was excellent since the President came out this week stating that Pakistan was a “strong ally” of the US. How’s he figure that?
Pakistan is likely harboring Bin Laden. Doesn’t that make it in the President’s own words our “enemy” and not our “strong ally.”

Feels like we’ve fallen down the rabbit hole here:

“Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.
Alice: The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things.
Humpty Dumpty: The question is: which is to be master – that’s all.”

Yes indeed, Humpty, yes indeed.