Does he even begin to realized the Negative statement he just made about his own party? The Anbar Awakening came about because they understood that the dhimmicrats would stab Iraq in the back by pulling out the troops?

Idiot.

It's a good thing the electioneering process is a long one the US. They need plenty of time to ask important questions of the would-be Leaders of their country. It goes beyond colour, religion and charisma.

We should be very attentive as well since whoever leads the US affects all of the free world.

Interesting turn around seeing how both Pelosi and Obama voted for every Iraqi war funding and troop bill passed in the house.

Also interesting is how tolerant the Dem front runners are to extended ME military involvement the closer they get to the oval office...seems both party's front runners can smell the coffee being made by the entrenched Jacobins who really run policy actuation within the DC beltway.

Prediction: at ground level implementation stage there is no practical difference between the foreign policies of the front running GOPs and Dems

The thing is, this kind of correlation between X and Y can be said about anything. And a fictional correlation can be very hard to disprove. Kerry's Swift Boat tale about himself was much easier to disprove because it referred to specific events that could be shown not to have taken place.

So, Obama informs us that the reason for the success of the surge, is not the surge, but the Democratic win in the Senate/House and the possible reduction of troops - which would make 'them Iraqis' do something on their own. There's no way to effectively prove or disprove this statement, even though it has little credibility in fact. But many Democrats will accept this conclusion.

What it does show us, however, is that Obama has no knowledge, not even moderate, of the nature of Islamic fascism, and the nature of the ME. And that reflects a great many people in the world whose knowledge is equally superficial.

And that's the appeal of Obama- he's a Utopian, ie, someone focused on rhetoric rather than actions. You could see how hard Hillary Clinton was trying to bring this out in the debates, with her constant endless references to the difference between 'words' and 'action' and how Obama was all about 'words', while she had proven that she could take that important next step and move from words to action.
Obama's inexperience and his focus on words is a dangerous combination. Let's hope he's dropped soon.

There is, however, one important rhetorical set of Obama's that we in Canada and elsewhere should accept. That's his rejection of multiculturalism. His Victory Speech in Iowa was specific; it rejected divisions; it rejected the divisions of political parties, of cultures, of ethnicities into 'We are All Americans'.

That's something we desperately need to do in Canada. We need to reject the multicultural policies of the Liberals, policies which have deliberately splintered us, set us up into adversarial closed groups, into Voting Blocs For The Liberals, each dependent of largesse from the Liberals. We need to instead insist that we are All Canadians - and start to develop a common identity. That's vital.

Speaking of Dumb About the ME and Iraq, what about Ron Paul, with his insistence that the reason for Islamic fascism and terrorism is the US military bases in various ME countries? Now, if that has to be one of the most idiotic, stupid, ignorant things ever said......Unbelievable that he could be so stupid..

I can just imagine the tapes being recorded in the GOP campaign HQ so thay can be ready with the election ads. The Obama comment might just be enough to prove to a security aware nation that he is a foreign affairs lightweight.

It was fun to watch the squirming . . . a vulnerable spot for sure.

obama , new media darling

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080106/obama_relations_080106/20080106?hub=TopStories

and here - John Cleese doing an early obama impersonation about foreign policy when questioned by Rex Murphy.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sw8ZL_gcTSM

Obama will be revealed.

"This is an important story being ignored by every member of the mainstream media. I have covered it here and here. Obama's ties to Kenya run deep. He knows the political landscape. Why would he back such a violent, dangerous man who made a pact with the Muslims to institute sharia? Obama's bias for his fellow Luo was so blatant that a Kenya government spokesman denounced Obama during his visit as Raila's "stooge." Pay attention to this story and pass it on. It bodes ill for our future should this man become President."

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/

There is, however, one important rhetorical set of Obama's that we in Canada and elsewhere should accept. That's his rejection of multiculturalism. His Victory Speech in Iowa was specific; it rejected divisions; it rejected the divisions of political parties, of cultures, of ethnicities into 'We are All Americans'.
YES ET: But that's only words too. He's a two-bit race-hustler make no mistake about that -- and his popularity is racist (voting for a man because of the colour of his skin).

Speaking of Dumb About the ME and Iraq, what about Ron Paul, with his insistence that the reason for Islamic fascism and terrorism is the US military bases in various ME countries? Now, if that has to be one of the most idiotic, stupid, ignorant things ever said......Unbelievable that he could be so stupid.
THANK YOU. This is precisely what I've been trying to get across to an old friend who, amusingly, I "converted" to "libertarianism" -- only it took wrong and he became a frothing-at-the-mouth Paulite like our friend WL Mackenzie Redux.

Over and over again I tried to explain to him that the 1400 year jihad is not grievance-driven. And all those "youts" following him -- who pretend to be interested in the constitution -- are really Blame America guilt-lackeys for their hard-left-hippie profs.
Wow, did I actually use the word lackeys :)

This points up the inherent weakness of the Democrats' tying their political capital to their own country's defeat. Now that the prospect of success is evident to everyone, including the Democratic candidates, they're trapped in the obvious absurdity of trying to portray defeatist policy and rhetoric as the path to victory. The verbal gymnastics that will be required to sustain this farce can only become more contorted as complete victory comes closer. The dilemma becomes: the necessity of appealing to the defeatist. anti-patriotic element of the Democrat electorate required to win the nomination and the necessity of taking that dead albatross into the presidential election, versus appealing to a patriotic minority amongst the Democrats by supporting the US military thereby severely compromising the ability to win the Democratic nomination in the first place, notwithstanding the better chance of success in the presidential race that such an appeal would bring.

Talk about denial - wow! Oh sorry, this isn't about global warming...

Regardless of their place, left or right, on the political spectrum; this is a fight for the votes of middle America. There’s about 25 % that swing vote for either party. And maybe about 25 % move around a lot in Canada too. So the fight for the middle is relevant here. I think that what we see in common is this statement by Obama which could also have been made by Huck.

" In lines that stretched around schools and churches, in small towns and in big cities, you came together as Democrats, Republicans and independents, to stand up and say that we are one nation.”

My experience canvassing for John Tory led me to believe that at a gut level the “faith based funding” fiasco was about this same multiculti thing. People have had a belly full of multiculti, they don’t want to support it any more. They accept and tolerate diversity provided we all end up as Canadians and not hyphenated-Canadians.

Immigrants feel even more strongly about this than WASPs.

ET:
"Now, if that has to be one of the most idiotic, stupid, ignorant things ever said......Unbelievable that he could be so stupid.."

Ya he's completely barking mad...claims the US is not the world's police force and there is no directive from the constitution to be so...completely off his nut he is...maybe he should go along with this neo-con PNAC manifest destiny occultism.

Obama is a moron. Here's why. If somebody wants you gone from somewhere they usually push you harder and not softer because they know they can do it. When they back off they know they don't have momentum behind them and they wait and bide their time for annother day when maybe the tables will turn. Obama will not become president but he will be a good dummy for the reps to punch out later this year. (real conservative)

This doesnt surprise me. Isnt there a Hollywood film out about how the Democrats won the Cold War?

'CTV political analyst' - that's funny!

"PNAC manifest destiny occultism."

Thanks for colouring your usual boilerplate; still tedious and obsessive, but the new phrase adds interest.
(And Paul is crazy.)

Too say nothing of how demeaning that statement is to the troops on the ground, that are actually making it happen. Nope, nothing to do with the sacrifices of the boots on the ground, all the results are due to warped Dem policies........

I would dearly love to hear Charles Gibson next ask them all how, if they were president, they would respond to another September 11. Reading further about Hillary whining how people "hurt her feelings" was quite amusing. I don't recall the great female statesmen of the past, like Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, and Indira Ghandi putting on the "poor me" bit and sobbing how people hurt their feelings.

And, just think, that whole Iraq thing could have been done sooo much cheaper had they used Pelosi's husband's tuna-packing slave labor.

http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/node/1887

Those voting for Obama are probably a lot of the I hate America group, plus those that think a vote for a black man will eaze their conscience for all the past sins, wrongs, perceived wrongs etc towards the blacks for the past 300 yrs.
It would be interesting to see how many independents and others are changing their registration to vote in the primaries, just to get the candidate they feel their side can beat in Nov. How many of them will pull the lever for him/her in Nov. If it was me, I would just to give the pollsters and media a shock.

[quote]I would dearly love to hear Charles Gibson next ask them all how, if they were president, they would respond to another September 11. [/quote]

You don't want to Know the Truth!

Gibson did well! I loved how he setup Clinton with the question to Richardson "Experience Vs youth." It was classic MSM mischief.
(ABC is Canada South, don't you know!)

The Republican's are appealing to the same PLL, and if Americans are saying they are sick of the Corruption in DC, they better get on the same page! The Clintons are step ONE

I think that part of the reason that the surge worked is that the Iraqi's realized that the US was not leaving. Everyone had expected, after the elections, that Bush would be forced to draw down the troops - and this is what was expected from everyone - it was a huge shocker when he announced a surge. The Iraqi's (and I mean all Iraqi's) realized that they could no longer hedge their bets and that they did not have to work with AQ. Most people need to know that the surge supported a new strategy and new set of tactics to address lessons learned on the ground.

Obama is a smooth talking guy - and he does leave an impression the first couple of times you hear him - but the Martin Luther King shtick get pretty tiring after a while. I think that the beauty of the American system is that this seemingly long-winded vetting process does work (and if it fails - as is the case for Carter - it's fixed in one term).

This is touch and go and it*s a long way to November.

Brace yourself for a lot of screaming dems in the MSM if there happens to be an up-tick in Iraq.

Here*s hoping the neighbourhood security guys manage to spot the al Qaeda sneaks and squash them before any big blasts can go off. = TG

@noddyrules:

Nor HM the Queen, come to think of it. Even though she's much older than Hillary, she keeps doing her duties, uncomplainingly.

I mention this contrast in part out of world-historical irony. Has anyone else noticed that the advances of feminism (cast as democratic) have tended to come during the times when a female Sovereign is on the U.K. throne? The only exception I can think of was the suffragist movement at its most visible, which could be seen as a move to consolidate gains made under the reign of Queen Victoria.

@WL Mackenzie Redux:

Not to worry. We're still in the "...mighty modern Maxim gun/That sent the Dervish to the sun" phase. Questions such as "why are these aggressive Muslims attacking us instead of each other as they normally do?", or "why are we veering towards making Israel another Guam when they've done quite well on their own so far?" don't speak very well to the times. They will when my faux-Kipling doggerel reaches "Ho! Now come the Dervish Hun/The War by Christmas shall be won."

Johnny Eagle, like John Bull, sometimes has to learn the hard way.

wl mackenzie, daniel ryan~ why DO you hate Jews? Just curious.

Tell me Otter why do you post here?

That has to be the second most toxically idiotic statement SDA has seen...you're competing with lock-step leftoids in conditioned responses.

Being a talk-show conservative does NOT:

A) make you conservative ideologically

B) capable of independent critical thinking..

I suggest you give both a try before you use libel to make realities fit your daydream.

Dean sez: "(And Paul is crazy.) "

It's irrelevant what you think Paul "is" all that matters is what the voters see in him.

So far he has galvanized a spirit in the electorate nit seen since the 30 and the days of Huey Long and republican populism.

Here is a candidate who lives by the word of the constitution, he votes as per his convictions and does not vary, he has never taken a government perk...founding father material...and IF that seems "crazy" in this age it is a litmus test as to how far down the rabbit hole of corrupt oligarchy we have gone since the ideals of 1776 were encapsulated in a constitution.

@otter:

Where did you get the unusual idea that "respect" is spelled h-a-t-e? Education system let you down?

If so, then I suggest remedial self-education. Since you are evidently sympathetic to meddling, I might as well meddle with you. Start with a history of Israel, one that reveals that Israel has never lost a war. Then look up the definition of "proud" and take a virtual field trip to find out how proud people react to others meddling in their battles.

If this response comes across as patronizing, too bad. Meddling begets meddling.

Daniel M. Ryan said:

""why are we veering towards making Israel another Guam when they've done quite well on their own so far?" don't speak very well to the times. They will when my faux-Kipling doggerel"

The is more to the ME trouble rooted in Kipling era imperialism than you think.

Here's a quote from Sir Arnold Storrs' Memoirs...he was the Lt. Governor of Palastine in the 20s when the UK empire was grooming the area for a Jewish homeland.:

"We have set up in the Middle East, another Ulster"

Seems either prophetic or actuated planning going against the better judgement of the empire's vice regal governing policies.

Did I touch a nerve?

Tsk!

Get off your high horses.