In this article on the presidential candidates and the Senate hearings featuring General Petraeus. we learn that one of those candidates, the Democratic frontrunner, Senator Barack Obama would rather attend a campaign fundraiser than hear what our top military commander in Iraq has to say. Apparently, he left the hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee early:
Obama received some senatorial courtesy from Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., even though he’s a Clinton backer. Nelson should have gone before Obama in the questioning, but three hours into the hearing he let Obama go ahead so he could avoid a scheduling problem. Obama had two campaign fundraisers to attend.
It sounds like the Illinois Democrat skedaddled soon after he had his time in front of the cameras. (Kind of sounds like his and his Democratic rival’s policies on Iraq, just skedaddle.)
I wonder if other Senators left as soon as they had their say.
Look, Obama reminds us ad nauseam that he opposed the Iraq War from the get-go. That’s nice red meat to throw to his leftie supporters, but the fact is we’re in Iraq now and need he handle the situation as it is, not as he wishes it might have been. Should he win election to the White House, come January 20, 2009, he’ll be Commander-in-Chief, responsible for our military operations.
Shouldn’t he want to listen carefully to what our generals in the field have to say so he can develop appropriate policies to deal with the situation on the ground? But, I guess to please the left, it’s more important that the facts be based on their hatred of George W. Bush and his “war” than the situation as our military commanders see it.
I can’t believe that the writer would believe that we should wait until our field generals recommend our course in Iraq. Old cowboy George says we will be there until ” victory is achieved ” what general , who likes being a general is going to question the mission , even if it looks like a fool’s errand ? Bill Youmans , Clearwater , Florida
Hey, Bill, read the post. I didn’t say we should have the generals recommend our course, I said we should listen to this general who’s been in the field before determining the course.
Hope that clarifies things.
I think Bill was as perceptive as Obama was concerned. The Senator made an appearance, got a sound bite and was out the door. This guy can’t sit still for a moment when someone else has something to say. It might just appear that someone else has something he could learn.
He has convinced everyone, including himself, that he is just above it all.
That’s his whole ‘shtick’. And the lemmings are still buying it.
Nah. There’s no money in it. What’s more, Hannity’s been pointing out that Obama has rarely taken a stand on major issues deciding to vote “Present” instead of yes or no. That way, he can’t be held accountable for anything one way or the other.
And we’re supposed to elect this guy????
If the hearings had a common theme, it was the contrast between the seriousness of General Petraeus and the sensitivity of Democrats to domestic political concerns. President Bush’s worst mistakes in Iraq were due to standing by flawed strategies and old thinking. Democrats have now adopted that posture. – WSJ
Bill, Cowboy George is set to rotate out on Jan 20, 2009. Should Obama replace Cowboy George, it will be his job to gather the advice of his professionals and to make the decisions as Commander in Chief.
Apparently, it is your opinion that the views of the military should be suspect. In the meantime, Obama may vote something other than “present” on the course of the war on terror without have actually listened to Patraeus. That is his option, but is that the commander in chief you really want.
Of course, it is entirely possible that Obama operates from the position that when you have made up your mind, there is no reason to get confused by facts.
At any rate, you can mark your calendar for the day that Cowboy George leaves your craw. You will feel so much better then, won’t you?
#5 – Helio, don’t count on it. A lot of these BDS sufferers will still likely blame the nation’s ills on GWB even after he leaves office.
Which incidentally, flies in the face of contradictory evidence of Clinton putting us in the path of 9/11 due to his "Gorelick wall" separation. Of course, the MSM and the Dhimmicrats don’t want us to talk about that – after all, 9/11 is all Bush’s fault! (SARC)
Regards,
Peter H.
You will feel so much better then, won’t you?
With our choices out there? Hell no!
I’d vote for JEB if he’d do it.
It seems the ole “cut and run Democrats”, cut and run Obama left early instead of staying to become informed on the situation from the commander on the ground. Typical polititian. I thought Barack was suppose to be different. He left early to grovel for more cash. Maybe next time he could let the right Rev Wright sit in his chair. Give the right Rev about 10 more minutes of TV time to fill us in on his position on the war. I’d be kind of interested. It might give us a furthur insight into Baracks soul.
The question the MSM won’t ask. “Senator Obama, you were one of only a handful of people in the free world who knew Sadam Hussien didn’t have weapon of mass destruction. You opposed a strike to over throw his empire even though he was breaking the peace accord ending Gulf War I. But you didn’t know your neighborhood preacher was a racist. Giving rousing racist anti American tyraids with your wife and children in the congregation. Can you explain this irony?”