Barack ObamaHmm... Do you suppose Obama heard that at church?
Cape Girardeau, Missouri
May 13, 2008
This was one of those slips that reveals the Far Left core of the Obamessiah.
Jim Geraghty explained:
This is what's truly disturbing about Barack Obama's foreign policy vision — it sees ending the Iraq War as the Philosopher's Stone that, once found, will turn all of our leaden overseas problems into golden opportunities.Truly... Obama sees ending the Iraq "mistake" a key point in his foreign policy agenda. But, more than that, his statement shows that Obama believes our NATO allies act in mean spiteful ways and make foreign policy decisions based on emotion.
That seems a bit immature for the man who wants to be president of the United States, wouldn't you say?
And, where did Obama get this?... From Daily Kos or Trinity UCC?
Obama is wrong about NATO troops.
International Security Assistance Force (Wiki)
The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is the name of a NATO-led security and development mission in Afghanistan which was established by the United Nations Security Council on 20 December 2001. ISAF was initially charged with securing Kabul and surrounding areas. In October 2003, the UN Security Council authorized the expansion of the ISAF mission throughout Afghanistan, and subsequently expanded the mission in four main stages over the whole of the country. Since 2006, ISAF has been involved in more intensive combat operations in southern Afghanistan, a tendency which continued in 2007- Wiki.
There were 49 coalition members at the start of Iraqi Freedom.
There are currently 40 contributing member nations in the ISAF.
Of those NATO nations that opposed the Iraq War:
-- Elite French troops were deployed in southeastern Afghanistan in July 2003.Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder even made it clear that his opposition to the Iraq War would not affect his country's contributions in Afghanistan.
-- Germany has had thousands of troops contributing in Afghanistan since December 2001.
Where Obama got the notion that, "NATO hasn't provided enough troops because they are still angry about us going into Iraq," is anybody's guess.
But, it's not based in fact.
Maybe Obama took it from one of Jeremiah Wright's sermons?
The Campaign Spot has been all over this Obama gaffe and makes several good points on this slip.
Previously:
OOPS!! Obama Goofs-- Wants More Arabic Speakers in Afghanistan (Video)
++
ReplyDeleteObama lives via an alternate Utopian Marxist vision of the world.. which couldn't be farther from reality if he was campaigning on the Luna..
==
Sounds like Obama's actually been listening to what's been said by the Sec. of State, Sec. of Defense, the Sen. Intelligence Committe, heck, even McCain's close friend and Co-Chair of the Afghanistan Study Group, Gen. James L. Jones. McCain on the other hand embarrassingly contradicted Jones. It's not just older reports about too little NATO support (example), but just this year, last month, when a Sen. Intelligence Comm. letter was sent to Bush, and earlier this year with the actual report "Saving Afghanistan: An Appeal and Plan for Urgent Action" (won't link to it, it's a pdf), that while de-emphasizing the military role (something McCain gaffed about), said that military still though not the longterm solution, does help and that "many publics in Europe elsewhere have mistakenly associated the efforts in Afghanistan with the unpopular war in Iraq. The United States needs to separate these 2 campagins in its public diplomacy, in order to bolster support for Afghanistan."
ReplyDeleteObama on foreign policy: right as usual.
Maybe if Obama actually held a committee meeting of his Senate committee that oversees NATO, he could learn the truth.
ReplyDeleteSo far this year, he has not held a single meeting.
++
ReplyDeleteyes, NATO et al have had their typical problems, they've had them for quite a long time, and i see no hope of change.. hence, when the Islamists start hitting them hard, guess who's troops will be called upon??
at any rate, to cite the NYT sort of moots your point, as their omission style of reporting is part of the problem..
Obama Completely Misreads NATO's motives on Afghanistan
==
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete++
ReplyDeleteduh, hit wrong tab..
oops.. re: bg @ 10:15 AM..
was in response to Cindy @ 9:39 AM..
==
Cindy, being a day late and a dollar short doesn't make you (or Obama) much of a foreign policy expert. Aside from attempting to change the emphasis from what Obama actually *said* (as opposed to what Obamaites believe they heard him say, or think he would/should have said) to your version of the debate, Canada just recently agreed to extend their troops' mission, and other NATO nations are adding or rotating troops.
ReplyDeleteThat has little or nothing to do, however, with Obama's idiocy.
Much of the problem in Afghanistan comes from doing just what Obama typically claims he wants to do. The UN-led command has hesitated to actually, you know, fight very much nor to attempt the tactics that have been working so well since the Surge in Iraq. (You do remember that, don't you, you 'miserable failure' types?)
The UN prefers to hunker down and only fight the Taliban and such when opportunity presents itself. It's not the number of troops that is lacking but the fighting attitude. The Ozzies and the Canadians do pretty well with what they've got (I understand that the Canucks, much like the Brits in Iraq, suffer from some supply shortages), but the others are too close to the stereotypical UN Bleu Helmet weenies.
I do love, however, the vain attempts to keep Obama's infallibility burnished. Perhaps you might like to check out the LA Times' article on Obama's "Tusla Moment." ;->=
Obama is saying that certain NATO nations, rather than just being squeamish about incurring casualties are actually, and with forethought sacrificing the welfare, freedoms and lives of a people who have suffered under brutal theocratic rule and terrorist campaign to support mass murdering terrorists and monsters out of spite. I guess he doesn't think much of these Europeans.
ReplyDeleteCindy, you're missing the point. NATO does not have enough troops in Afghanistan, all your links show that. We've complained about it and so have the Canadians. The gaffe on Obama's part is to suggest that these low troop levels are somehow a result of our NATO allies' displeasure with our invasion of Iraq. None of your links support that contention.
ReplyDeleteObama: an inexperienced political hack that will wreck this country if we're stupid enough to elect him.
kafir,
ReplyDeleteObama is worse then a hack.
He is a demagogue who activly supports Islamofascism.
Weak minds like Cindy have historically swooned over demagogues like Obama. There is no point in feeding a troll like Cindy, she will only parrot the Obamaline.