Essentially, what Obama did yesterday w/Petraeas and Crocker was to call their bluff.

[hisownpetard]

In so many words, he asked them: How perfect would the situation in Iraq have to be for you and the Administration to say, 'OK, enough. We did our job.
Now we can bring our troops home.'

Since they keep moving the goalposts, his question in effect asked them to define what they see as "winning." If things were as they are now, but without our troops
stationed there, would that be an acceptable situation? (After all, Crocker and Petraeus just spent untold hours telling us in glowing terms of the progress that's been made
in Iraq during the last 6 months).

If this war is unwinnable, might as well bring everyone home now.
If it's winnable, how will we know when we get there?

With only the few minutes available to him, I think we got an up-close glimpse of Obama's diplomatic capabilities at work. He brings no anger to the table - just
smart questions and abundant insight, which he uses to get to the bottom of the problem at hand.

The other candidates always seem to need two chairs - one for them, one for their ego.
I did not see that yesterday with Obama.

What I saw was someone who truly wants to end the war, who understands that both sides are invested in their own policies and want to find what they think is the correct path to follow,
He therefore is intent on forging a new path, somewhere between the two existing parallel ones, that everyone can walk.

Once again, I am so happy that I've decided to support Obama, a decision that seems to get reinforced with every new day.

[NanceGreggs]

1. Very insightful post!

:kick: and REC'D!

[hisownpetard]

4. Wow. Thanks, Nance!

Appreciate it.

:yourock:

[hisownpetard]

41. NOTE: Video link of Obama's questioning at Post #20, thanks to Crunchy Frog.

[slick8790]

2. I was very happy with how he handled it.

And also very amused at how the question just went right over petraeus and crocker's heads.

[hisownpetard]

10. They didn't have a prepared answer for that question, I'm sure.

[mcollier]

57. Right Obama opened the path

for the 2 to be candid about the status and plan ahead for Iraq, instead the questions were no really answered. That's ok because Barack will be asking them the same questions in Jan. 2008 as Commander In Chief.

[hisownpetard]

69. Let's hope so! And welcome to DU.

:hi:

[ooglymoogly]

76. I hope at that time he will be asking Gen. Clark. Only

then will he get something other than corporate doublespeak.

[tulsakatz]

3. he has a good point!!

I mean, if you don't know what will define success, how would you know if you've achieved it?

For that matter, if you don't have a definite goal, how would you know what steps to take to acheive that goal?

[hisownpetard]

6. That's precisely it. Without defining what conditions would ultimately be acceptable,

John McCain's dream of having this war last for 50 to 100 years becomes a real possibility.

Obama got to the crux of the matter and zeroed in on it, without making a big -to-do.

I thought it was awesome.

[goclark]

60. His words have a way of sinking into your brain

He speaks with such an easy grace that you sometimes don't realize that you have been hit with a baseball bat. :bounce:

I love the way his brain works,

Many are as smart as he is, or smarter, but they don't have the people skills that he must have been born with.

I want to see that new TIME magazine article about his mother.

She moved him around a lot and it was "good experience" for him in my view.
It forced him to get along and understand people from various cultures.

[hisownpetard]

66. "He speaks with such an easy grace that you sometimes don't realize that you have been hit with a

baseball bat."

Great! Thanks for that!!


:thumbsup: :hi:

[goclark]

70. You are welcome ~

Kicking this thread

[BumRushDaShow]

5. K&R

:kick:

[hisownpetard]

8. Thanks!

:hi:

[KAZ]

7. K&R Great post.

[hisownpetard]

9. Thanks so much!

:headbang:

[flor de jasmim]

11. I agree - I missed Hillary yesterday so watched it at C-SPAN this morning--

the first HALF of her time was a campaign-type speech on why withdrawal from Iraq is a good idea. She asked exactly TWO questions with her remaining time and sounded confrontational. I suppose they weren't "bad" questions, but she didn't seem to be going anywhere (and therefore did not advance the discussion). To her credit, many times she has been VERY impressive, but yesterday was not one of those days. But in any case, Obama's TONE of voice was so much better--he used all of his time (about 9 minutes to Hillary's 13 or so) to work towards pinning Petraeus down, but in no way that seemed either offensive or defensive.

[hisownpetard]

12. I truly think he has the gift of being a real mediator, in the sense that he doesn't give off any

vibes of anger or sneakiness like we're used to in our politicians.

People tend to trust someone who isn't in it for their own gains.
In politics, this is almost unheard of.

[Divernan]

67. Obama is calm and statesmanlike; HRC is preachy and angry.

[hisownpetard]

71. And McCain has a room reserved for him at Golden Acres Happy Farm.

[GMFORD]

73. That's what I was thinking.

He was so non-confrontational that Petreus didn't get on the defensive. It helped him to get reasonable answers out of Petreus and it appeared Petreus honestly wanted to answer within the framework he was given.

[Jane Austin]

13. The way he walked them through the question -

and their fumbling answers - made me realize the Bush administration and its generals don't have any plans for Iraq other than just kicking the can on down the road.

I always assumed that at least the military had some objectives and specific goals.

[GihrenZabi]

14. Footage?

Anyone have a link to some tape of all this?

Thanks in advance if you do. :)

[Crunchy Frog]

20. Right here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yG83rSm6fY

[hisownpetard]

27. Terrific. Thanks for doing that. Appreciate it!

[hisownpetard]

15. Even now - no exit strategy. No plans on ever leaving.

[JBoy]

19. I watched that, just shaking my head.

Reinforced for me the complete lack of leadership being shown by Bush. It's obvious he's just running out the clock, on the backs of America's serving men and women, and future taxpayers.

[hisownpetard]

43. Yeah. Reminds me of that video clip of Bush walking over t0 that big door, to leave, and

it's locked. He pulls on the handle again - still locked. So he just stands there...

[Texas Hill Country]

16. except for the part where he mixed up Iran and Iraq, it was not bad at all.

[hisownpetard]

17. Well, I do that myself sometimes. I trip over that one letter's difference.

[TahitiNut]

18. The classic problem with "the ends justify the means" is that the means BECOMES the end.

Again, it was claimed that a 'preemptive' (illegal) invasion of Iraq and overthrow of the Baathist regime was the MEANS ... and that the ENDS was to prevent a 'mushroom cloud' and some vague parade of horribles. We have constantly heard the drumbeat of "win" the "war" when it's NOT a "war" and there's no idea what "win" is.

So, it's obvious. The "ends" (objective) has become the very thing they've done: the military occupation of Iraq.

There. Is. No. Other. End.

Obama (again) made that clear. Petraeus couldn't even identify any other end. None. Nada.

A mission without an objective is illegitimate.

[hisownpetard]

22. Yup.

:hi:

[ginnyinWI]

21. He showed us how he'd act as Commander in Chief.

Calm, deliberative, but cutting through the crap to get to the meat of the thing. When are we going to say we've secured Iraq? What are the goals? How close to 100% are we ever going to realistically get? And if not 100%, when can we say it's enough?

So much better than just pointing out failures. He was actually moving the ball down the court toward a practical definition of "success".

[hisownpetard]

23. Yes - without fanfare, without histrionics, just cutting through the crap and getting to the core of

the issue.

Wow. I could take 8 years of that.

[ieoeja]

24. According to PNAC the goal was to establish permanent military bases in Iraq.

Not only does it help us secure Middle Eastern oil, but it puts us right at the nexus of Europe, Asia and Africa. If you think of it as a game of Risk, it makes perfect sense.

Of course, if you believe the geopolitical scene is more complex than a game of Risk, then it makes no sense whatsoever. Not a very good general election argument, unfortunately, since a large percentage of the American public really does believe national security is no more complex than that.

(sigh)


Reading PNAC has taught me how people reading Mein Kampf must have felt back when Hitler was "Man of the Year". They put their intentions in black and white and published it for the whole world to see. But if you bring it up to most people, they hand you the tin foil.

(sigh)


Disclaimer: this would actually be a terrible strategy in Risk. But to the Conservative military mind, it sounds brilliant. Remember, the worst thing you can say about a military commander is that he is too conservative. It is no wonder no Conservative president has ever won a serious war for this country.

[wowimthere]

25. There was substance in his questions... The others...

with the exception of Kerry and Dodd... were really blow hards. Hillary as usual came off flat and queen like.

[hisownpetard]

26. Hillary sounded like she needed a double espresso and a tankful of gas.

[truedelphi]

28. More and more I see Hillary as twin to Mitt Romney

They both have that glow of entitlement to them.

And whenever anything upsets their apple cart, there is this very real, very red hot anger beneath it.

[hisownpetard]

31. I know what you mean.

It's that "how-dare-you?" air that comes over them.

[stillcool]

29. shit or get off the pot!

[hisownpetard]

32. Who, me?

:shrug:

[stillcool]

34. No the generals...

:shrug:

[hisownpetard]

Heh heh!

:hi:

[hisownpetard]

37. Delete/dupe

[samsingh]

30. good

[hisownpetard]

33. ...

:hi:

[quantass]

35. Yea his was very insightful

[hisownpetard]

38. ...

:hi:

[mopinko]

36. wish i could remember the exact quote from 13 days.

where lemay and the others are throwing around their war scenarios, and then say, "well hopefully at that point cooler heads would prevail." and jfk has a great crack about moving that up. damn. i need to watch that movie again.

[hisownpetard]

42. Is '13 Days' the name of the movie?

[mopinko]

45. yes. good movie

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0146309/

[Oilwellian]

39. I was most impressed with his understanding of Iran

One thing you hear little of is how much more powerful Iran is now that we've taken out Saddam. That is what makes this one of the most strategic blunders in American history. Obama trapped Crocker yesterday after eliciting from him a yes, Iran is financing & aiding in the attacks on Iraqi & American troops. His next question was, why has the Iraqi government welcomed Iranian leaders with open arms? It was a brilliant question and deserves far more attention & debate.

[hisownpetard]

40. Yes. He gave us a lot to think about in the few minutes that were allotted to him.

[kentuck]

44. I thought that was one of the best questions asked..

They did not know how to answer it. "Is he trying to trick us", was written all over their faces. It was delightful. :-)

[hisownpetard]

49. It was the only answer that didn't come rolling off their tongues like canned goods

on a conveyor belt. They were tripping and stuttering all over the place on that one.

[MannyGoldstein]

46. Oh Duh.

He's had a lot of experience lately in dealing with people who move goal posts - of course he's gotten good at it.

[ekwhite]

47. Great Post!

I loved seeing him work. He definitely had Crocker and Petraeus squirming by the end of his line of questioning. It is pretty clear they have no definition of success.

[hisownpetard]

50. They're just a couple of Repug robots, putting in time.

[cliffordu]

48. Excellent post!!! K&R!!!

:kick:




:patriot:

[hisownpetard]

51. Thank you kindly!

:hi:

[Divine Discontent]

52. thank you for the insight into what you saw, I missed it working, and I appreciate seeing this eom

[hisownpetard]

61. Nice to hear from you. Thanks for the kind words.

:hug:

[Zambero]

53. The "correct answer" is in another 100 years

McCain has already provided that bit of insight

[hisownpetard]

63. McCain wants to lead us back to the Dark Ages. Beyond belief.

[JDPriestly]

54. A lot of our senators did well.

Kerry was great. So was Menendez. I could go on and on. Hillary was wonderful too. They were so good.

[thereismore]

55. Good insight. nt

[FrenchieCat]

56. Yep. That was excellent. I noticed how coincidently,

Patraeus isn't looking for jeffersonian Democracy as of today......after yesterday.


Petraeus: 'We're not seeking a Jeffersonian democracy' in Iraq
April 09, 2008
Categories: Iraq


In response to a speech (and it can't be called anything else) by Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) on "Why are we fighting in Iraq?," Petraeus gave an interesting response: "We are not seeking a Jeffersonian democracy here."

Petraeus' point was that U.S. military leaders aren't seeking a perfectly functioning government in Iraq - what Petraeus called "the Holy Grail" - in order to delare victory and go home. Just one that works pretty well. It was an interesting statement and one needs further exploration. Is it a shift in goals for the United States in Iraq?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0408/Petraeus_Were_not_seeking_a_Jeffersonian_democracy_in_Iraq.html

[hisownpetard]

64. Hi, Frenchie. I noticed that, too.

:yourock:

[berni_mccoy]

58. What was even better was that they seemed unprepared for that line of questioning

They couldn't answer the question. They gave circular definitions for what it would take and Obama picked up on that as well.

[hisownpetard]

65. That was the point at which their 'circular' definitions just became gibberish. It would've

been laughable (sort of a military Who's-on-first) is we weren't talking about people getting killed.

[FrenchieCat]

75. No definition for success always, always leads to failure.......

which is what Bush's policies have been up to this point.

I think that Patraeus can't wait for an Obama presidency! :patriot:

[MyNameGoesHere]

59. None of the presidential candidates did a goddamn thing

yesterday that wasn't safe for them. For fucks sake lunatic Ron Paul was the only one who made serious challenge to the war pigs. a lunatic repuke?

You candidate might be anti-war, HRC is what she is, but i think Obama blew it much like his once in a lifetime race in America speech to cover his political ass.

[WyldRogue]

62. I tend to agree with this response somewhat....

... as it seemed to me that the Dem candidates played 'safe' with their light questions without adding any punches that would set them in line as the future POTUS who will make a stand and do what is right. McBush showed more balls than the Dems by steadily beating the same ol' drum for the * doctrine of staying put in Iraq.

I am going to have to face it and prepare for the flames but both of the Dem candidates blew their chances at talking tough to the people that keep moving the dates around (as they have for years now) for the 'winnable goal' in Iraq. Hell, keep giving them more time, more money, more troops, more ammo and keep paying off the extremists and you 'could' get some semblance of a 'win' in Iraq but how many chances do they get?? I just don't understand what is up with the House and Senate. Can't they see that the * Administration is stalling for time so they can either claim victory of some sort or to back out like AG Gonzales while no one's looking??

If both candidates truly are against the war, then DON'T vote to fund the war. Only fund the withdrawal of our troops and nothing more. Let the Iraqi Government use their oil to pay for everything else (remember when * stated that Iraqi oil would finance the 'War on Terror in Iraq'? Well, what happened??)

By the time both candidates and their supporters get through with their partisan in-fighting, the damage will be too insurmountable to overcome McBush for the Presidency.

Obama is looking better to me as days go by but time is running out. My vote goes to the Dem nominee no matter who he or she is.

UNITE the party or stay DIVIDED and fall Democrats.

[lizziegrace]

68. I watched him questioning

And you're right. No anger or attitude. Straight-forward questions. How will we know when we're there? Define success. If it's not possible, why are we still there?

Thank you for posting this. He's a very astute man.

[hisownpetard]

72. Thanks!

:pals:

[TomInTib]

74. Well put, 'petard. KnR

But I am still voting for Pat Paulsen.

Tom