As Progress in Iraq Continues, Obama/Biden’s Poor Judgment is Apparent
Sunday, October 12, 2008 at 06:43AM There are other signs that Obama/Biden display an inability for good judgment regarding commander-in-chief type duties beside the fact that Obama said the surge wouldn’t work, and still can’t admit it has.
Democratic VP nominee Joe Biden is a proponent of cordoning Iraq into 3 sections as a way of keeping the peace in Iraq. GEN Petraeus and Iraqi leaders, however, reject the plan as “an absolute disaster”.
As recently as September 2008, Biden was sticking to his proposed strategy saying Iraq is already segregated, reinforcing his plan .
But the walls that segregate in Iraq are coming down:
BAGHDAD — Market by market, square by square, the walls are beginning to come down. The miles of hulking blast walls, ugly but effective, were installed as a central feature of the surge of American troops to stop neighbors from killing one another.“They protected against car bombs and drive-by attacks,” said Adnan, 39, a vegetable seller in the once violent neighborhood of Dora, who argues that the walls now block the markets and the commerce that Baghdad needs to thrive. “Now it is safe.”The slow dismantling of the concrete walls is the most visible sign of a fundamental change here in the Iraqi capital.
The Obama/Biden plan calls for withdrawing all U.S. forces within 18 months, but currently as Americans draw down and Iraqi forces take over, there are concerns that have prompted MAJ GEN Jeffery Hammond to say,
“If the project were to fail, these guys would be out on the street, angry. Al Qaeda in Iraq will be recruiting them”
So let’s see; Obama/Biden are wrong about the surge, wrong about segregating Iraqis and wrong about their plan to end U.S. troop presence in Iraq.
Any questions?
PREVIOUSLY:
Trackback URL: http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/2417882
Barack Obama, Biden, Iraq 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (16)
The Kurds are not an integral part of Iraq, and the rest of the country is becoming an Iranian client state. What "Iraq" are you talking about?
What Obama got right was not wanting to start this fiasco in the first place. What the Bush/McCain arsonists want is to throw a glass of water on the towering inferno they lit, and be given credit as fire fighters.
Bah!
Mr. Grumpy,
What evidence do you have the Kurds are not an integral part of Iraq?
What evidence do you have that the rest of the country is becoming an Iranian client state?
And an Iranian client state seems to be a bad thing in your book. What hypothetically will the judgment of President Obama and foreign policy expert Vice-President Biden be with regards to the Iranians and their "client states"?
I hope their judgment is better than it was with regard to post-Saddam Iraq.
By the way, I like the sound of "post-Saddam Iraq". It's better than the "Saddam Iraq" Obama's judgment would have left us with.
Senator John McCain's Record on Troop and Veterans' Issues
Voting Against Veterans
Veterans Groups Give McCain Failing Grades. In its most recent legislative ratings, the non-partisan Disabled American Veterans gave Sen. McCain a 20 percent rating for his voting record on veterans' issues. Similarly, the non-partisan Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America gave McCain a "D" grade for his poor voting record on veterans' issues, including McCain's votes against additional body armor for troops in combat and additional funding for PTSD and TBI screening and treatment.
McCain Voted Against Increased Funding for Veterans' Health Care. Although McCain told voters at a campaign rally that improving veterans' health care was his top domestic priority, he voted against increasing funding for veterans' health care in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. (Greenville News, 12/12/2007; S.Amdt. 2745 to S.C.R. 95, Vote 40, 3/10/04; Senate S.C.R. 18, Vote 55, 3/16/05; S.Amdt. 3007 to S.C.R. 83, Vote 41, 3/14/06; H.R. 1591, Vote 126, 3/29/07)
McCain Voted At Least 28 Times Against Veterans' Benefits, Including Healthcare. Since arriving in the U.S. Senate in 1987, McCain has voted at least 28 times against ensuring important benefits for America's veterans, including providing adequate healthcare. (2006 Senate Vote #7, 41, 63, 67, 98, 222; 2005 Senate Votes #55, 89, 90, 251, 343; 2004 Senate Votes #40, 48, 145; 2003 Senate Votes #74, 81, 83; 1999 Senate Vote #328; 1998 Senate Vote #175; 1997 Senate Vote #168; 1996 Senate Votes #115, 275; 1995 Senate Votes #76, 226, 466; 1994 Senate Vote #306; 1992 Senate Vote #194; 1991 Senate Vote #259)
McCain Voted Against Providing Automatic Cost-of-Living Adjustments to Veterans. McCain voted against providing automatic annual cost-of-living adjustments for certain veterans' benefits. (S. 869, Vote 259, 11/20/91)
McCain Voted to Underfund Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain voted for an appropriations bill that underfunded the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development by $8.9 billion. (H.R. 2099, Vote 470, 9/27/95)
McCain Voted Against a $13 Billion Increase in Funding for Veterans Programs. McCain voted against an amendment to increase spending on veterans programs by $13 billion. (S.C.R. 57, Vote 115, 5/16/96)
McCain Voted Against $44.3 Billion for Veterans Programs. McCain was one of five senators to vote against a bill providing $44.3 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, plus funding for other federal agencies. (H.R. 2684, Vote 328, 10/15/99)
McCain Voted Against $47 Billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain was one of eight senators to vote against a bill that provided $47 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs. (H.R. 4635, Vote 272, 10/12/00)
McCain Voted Against $51 Billion in Veterans Funding. McCain was one of five senators to vote against the bill and seven to vote against the conference report that provided $51.1 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as funding for the federal housing, environmental and emergency management agencies and NASA. (H.R. 2620, Vote 334, 11/8/01; Vote 269, 8/2/01)
McCain Voted Against $122.7 Billion for Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain voted against an appropriations bill that included $122.7 billion in fiscal 2004 for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and other related agencies. (H.R. 2861, Vote 449, 11/12/03)
McCain Opposed $500 Million for Counseling Services for Veterans with Mental Disorders. McCain voted against an amendment to appropriate $500 million annually from 2006-2010 for counseling, mental health and rehabilitation services for veterans diagnosed with mental illness, posttraumatic stress disorder or substance abuse. (S. 2020, S.Amdt. 2634, Vote 343, 11/17/05)
McCain opposed an Assured Funding Stream for Veterans' Health Care. McCain opposed providing an assured funding stream for veterans' health care, taking into account annual changes in veterans' population and inflation. (S.Amdt. 3141 to S.C.R. 83, Vote 63, 3/16/06)
McCain Voted Against Adding More Than $400 Million for Veterans' Care. McCain was one of 13 Republicans to vote against providing an additional $430 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs for outpatient care and treatment for veterans. (S.Amdt. 3642 to H.R. 4939, Vote 98, 4/26/06)
McCain Supported Outsourcing VA Jobs. McCain opposed an amendment that would have prevented the Department of Veterans Affairs from outsourcing jobs, many held by blue-collar veterans, without first giving the workers a chance to compete. (S.Amdt. 2673 to H.R. 2642, Vote 315, 9/6/07)
McCain Opposed the 21st Century GI Bill Because It Was Too Generous. McCain did not vote on the GI Bill that will provide better educational opportunities to veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, paying full tuition at in-state schools and living expenses for those who have served at least three years since the 9/11 attacks. McCain said he opposes the bill because he thinks the generous benefits would "encourage more people to leave the military." (S.Amdt. 4803 to H.R. 2642, Vote 137, 5/22/08; Chattanooga Times Free Press, 6/2/08; Boston Globe, 5/23/08; ABCNews.com, 5/26/08)
Disabled American Veterans Legislative Director Said That McCain's Proposal Would Increase Costs For Veterans Because His Plan Relies On Private Hospitals Which Are More Expensive and Which Could Also Lead To Further Rationing Of Care. "To help veterans who live far from VA hospitals or need specialized care the VA can't provide, McCain proposed giving low-income veterans and those who incurred injury during their service a card they could use at private hospitals. The proposal is not an attempt to privatize the VA, as critics have alleged, but rather, an effort to improve care and access to it, he said. Joe Violanti, legislative director of the Disabled American Veterans, a nonpartisan organization, said the proposal would increase costs because private hospitals are more expensive. The increased cost could lead to further rationing of care, he said." (Las Vegas Sun, 8/10/08)
Fact-Check,
You had better check your facts. Fact is, this article is about Obama, Biden and their judgment on Iraq. It's not about veterans issues and John McCain.
Bob S.,
Check the votes before you make a complete fool of yourself. There right there in front of you and are very easy to Google or find.
Fact-check,
I don't dispute your "facts" however out of context or whatever pork laden bill they may have been attached to. But...
What do they have to do with an article about Obama, Biden, and their judgment on Iraq?
Have a nice day and enjoy your Kool-Aid.
Bob S.
I stand corrected, I read your comment wrong, I appoligize for that.
My post is a counter-point about who really supports who. Obama may not support the troops but neither does McCain.
Obama was right on Iraq, really? And why was that did have some super secret intelligence that no other agency around the world had. The facts were that the UN, Russians, Chinese and French believed that Iraq had a WMD program. About the most intelligent thing that Senator Biden said after 9/11 was bomb Iraq. Instead we give Iraq 11 months to move there WMD's out of the country.
The Obama was wrong about the surge and if we had followed through on what he wanted to do Al Qaeda would've refilled their ranks. Iran would have a bunch of puppets in Iraq. He still can't admit the surged worked. He'd rather say that we bribed are way to winning. I guess all the hard work our servicemen did was for nothing.
The Obama says he wants to leave Iraq as fast a possible, but will he go back into Iraq if we draw down to fast and the violence escalates or will Iraq go the way of Vietnam. Considering that the Obama campaign has collected 3 million dollars in shaddy contributions from foreigners, they seem to know what the Obama will do.
Fact Check, that's a complete fallacy. We all make mistakes with links, but as you said, your bottom line is that McCain doesn't stand for the troops. That is complete bunk.
The various bills you might be able to point to which has a "nay" vote for McCain are bills that, for example, also had a timeline for withdrawal as the Democrats tried to manipulate war planning through troop funding. That's why none of their bills passed and their anti-war efforts have been an utter flop in the Congress.
Also, some of those bills you might be to point to McCain on were loaded down with unrelated pork and McCain voted against those. What do providing body armour and studying cow flatulence have in common? Nothing. A defense funding bill should be separate from other unrelated bills presented by representives. Both Obama and McCain voted against some bills for that reason.
And hence, I heard a pundit say not long ago that this is why Senators never get elected President. Or at least not since 1960!
I can tell you as a wife of a combat soldier, John McCain has absolute respect from both soldiers and families alike. His life has been to support the troops and their quality of life. All one needs do is compare how many times McCain or Obama have visited the troops in the combat zone.... and not just before an election.
Bob S, I had to do a doubletake when I saw your name and not mine owning authorship of those comments. I was going to raise the same questions almost word for word.
To suggest the Kurds are not an intregal part of Iraq simply cannot be substantiated because it's a false assertion.
GEN Petraeus said a few months ago that our presence in Iraq doesn't enflame Iran but actually helps contain Iran. Both Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Sec. Def. Robert Gates agreed. They are the dream team, experts in their fields and Crocker in particular has devoted decades of his life to the Middle East.
Obama's judgment on Iraq is a blunder. Everyone who can put on unbiased, apolitical glasses for a few minutes admits this is the case. It is good we went in, that Saddam is gone, and that we invaded. From my recent entry:
You'll get nowhere trying to aver that John McCain doesn't support vets. throw up all the links you want. John McCain and Sarah Palin are very real stakeholders on veterans issues in a way that BHO can only imagine.
BHO also 'opposed the Iraq war' in 2002 as a stste senator with no risk to himself nor influence on the federal government's decision to remove Saddam, a policy put in place in 1998 by the Clinton administration.
"What evidence do you have the Kurds are not an integral part of Iraq?"
Centuries of history.
"Only 2 percent of Kurds wish to remain part of Iraq, but a declaration of nationhood would bring armed intervention from adjacent powers."
INVISIBLE NATION
How the Kurds’ Quest for Statehood Is Shaping Iraq and the Middle East
By Quil Lawrence
President (of Iraq) Talabani is a Kurd.
Integral.
Instead we give Iraq 11 months to move there WMD's out of the country.
This has got to be the funniest thing I've read in a month. Let's see....a false statement, a random, made-up number (11?), a spelling error, and no link to back up the claim.
You'll get nowhere trying to aver that John McCain doesn't support vets. throw up all the links you want.
Shorter Johnny: how dare you present me with actual facts I will just ignore, because...shut up, that's why!
Aversion to reality is prevelent here, apparently.
The faster America is out, the quicker Iraq can heal. America being in the middle east makes as much sense as Iran having troops in Central America.
It was always about American EGO.