Obama camp suggests lies over Palin visit to Iraq

Sunday 14th September, 11:07 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 101 Total Comments Show All

SushiSake3 at 10:43 AM JST - 15th September

Good morning Sarge - do you have any comment about Betzee's 7.55am post?
Sarge at 11:25 AM JST - 15th September

Good morning, Sushi. Yes, Betzee is implying that we are war mongers bent on world domination or some such nonsense. The fact is the Bush Doctrine means we reserve the right not to sit back and get hit first. These days doing that means losing thousands if not millions of our citizens. Got it?
moderateguy2008 at 11:33 AM JST - 15th September

Sarge- Hehe, putting the liberals in their place as ever.

Palin is fit to lead our nation, she has been honest throughout the campaign.

Iraq is secure because of leaders like her, not appeasers like Obama and BIden who would give the terrorists money, in hope of pacifying them!!!
SezWho2 at 03:12 PM JST - 15th September

Sarge,

I think we should reserve the right to strike first. And I think we should keep that right in reserve until we have exhausted other possibilities and until the threat is imminent. I don't believe we did this in Iraq.
Nippon5 at 03:23 PM JST - 15th September

Palin didnt lie thats the simple truth, One of her aides (as a governor) miss spoke , and most likely didnt have the right to speak on her behalf.. Tell me no one has ever said well Sushisake3 told me (sushisake3) did this.... and it wasnt right it was not what really happened?

As an experiment line up 100 people and whisper a secret to the first person, by the end it wont be any where close to what was started, doesnt mean anyone lied it just means they told it different then they actually where told...

Same goes for Obama when he was asked about his religious belief and he mistakenly said his Muslim belief, he didnt really mean it it was just a slip of the tounge right? and he corrected this slip and said christian belief, does this make him a liar as he said one thing and changed it to another?

As far as Obama calling it out, I think that was a grave mistake as it shows they are mis informing people by saying Palin lied when the proof shows she didnt say anything like that.

I still believe all politicians lie and its what turns me away from wanting to vote for any of them.

Latest polls in Minnesota show them dead even at 45/45 this is the first time in many many years a Rep has been any where close to the DEMS in a presidential election poll..

So hopefully the Election comes and all the armchair politicians can go back to arguing about which stupid soccer team tore their shirt off the best when they scored a goal.......
Nippon5 at 03:26 PM JST - 15th September

I think we should reserve the right to strike first. And I think we should keep that right in reserve until we have exhausted other possibilities and until the threat is imminent

That is very true, we didnt use that in WW2 and it cost us dearly, but we over stepped our boundries in Iraq, although we should of finished it in the first war with them as it was when the people of Iraq stood up to him and we had the worlds support..
goodDonkey at 08:09 PM JST - 15th September

Sarge said:

Betzee is implying that we are war mongers bent on world domination or some such nonsense. The fact is the Bush Doctrine means we reserve the right not to sit back and get hit first. These days doing that means losing thousands if not millions of our citizens. Got it?

I am not going to argue the basis of the Bush Doctrine where it says we have a right to conduct a preemptive strike when our national security is endangered. I do not think we have studied the ramifications thoughrouly and since we have not had to use it we should continue to study it before we use it. By that I mean Afghanistan was not a preemptive strike because we knew the government was in cohouts with Ossama and they drew first blood. Iraq did not qualify because our national security was not being threatened.

However even if you consider that the executive branch percieved that our national security was at risk they went beyond the simple theory of a preemtive strike and added a caveot. SezWho2 correctly stated, "And I think we should keep that right in reserve until we have exhausted other possibilities and until the threat is imminent. I don't believe we did this in Iraq." It was clearly not imminent. I have been shouting it off the rooftops for years that there was no imminent danger. We had a no fly zone at the time. We were flying U.S Air Force F-16 and F-15 jets over Iraqi airspace every single day. We had AWACs (which is far beyond simple radar in gaining assement of the enemies capabilities and movement) in the sky at the time. We had other sophisticated intelligence gathering aircraft recording their every movement. They had no delivery systems. Let me say it again! They had no delivery systems. It was impossible for them to bomb anywhere beyond their borders. We were not letting there jets take off and we could see from aerial intelligence that they had no missle launch systems. What were we worried about; the Iraqis were going to drive a semitrailer to America and detonate a bomb? So let's be perfectly clear Bush not only advocated preemptive strikes he advocted a strike on a nation that had no capabilities in the foreseeable future. It was regime change pure and simple. We attacked another country so we could change the government. So, Sarge, you don't "got it." We could not have been "hit first." Remember, Sarge, jets, flying over Iraq even when they did not let inspectors in we had complete command and control. So that could never mean "losing thousands if not millions of our citizens. Got it?"
Betzee at 11:11 PM JST - 15th September

Yes, Betzee is implying that we are war mongers bent on world domination or some such nonsense. The fact is the Bush Doctrine means we reserve the right not to sit back and get hit first. These days doing that means losing thousands if not millions of our citizens.

Um, no I wasn't (though Ron Paul was). Rather I was pointing out that a potential vice president is unable to identify was has become the core tenet of US foreign policy since 11 September 2001, and this is not a major gaffe? I means how low have you guys set the bar?
Betzee at 03:54 AM JST - 16th September

I am not going to argue the basis of the Bush Doctrine where it says we have a right to conduct a preemptive strike when our national security is endangered.

I think very few would argue that. The problem with the Bush doctrine is that it was implemented on a "shoot first, ask questions later" basis to justify a preemptive strike against Saddam with his reconstituted nuclear weapons program. Indeed, even asking questions would put our national security at risk given the specter of the "mushroom cloud." Don't you remember GWB expressing impatience in late 2002? I mean he had already penciled in the start date.
CavemanLawyer at 03:39 PM JST - 17th September

Obama has visited Iraq twice and Afghanistan once. He also went a lot further in than 4 football fields.

--Cirroc
Alinsky4prez at 04:02 PM JST - 17th September

Not only has Barack been to Iraq twice but he also negotiated with officials there , telling them to wait til he is our president before agreeing to a drawdown of our invading and occupying force.

Pure genius.

The repubs cant compete. Hahahahahaha, tooo funny.
jwills79 at 07:25 PM JST - 18th September

ModerateGuy,

What you are saying is describing the Republicans.T he only reason why the violence has gone down is because the Bush Administration has being paying rebels and terrorist monthly payments to stop fighting. Once the money goes the fighting starts. This is documented facts.
jwills79 at 07:23 AM JST - 20th September

The surge was also not the main reason violence has decreases recently. One of the main factors has been the neighborhoods have become mostly segregated. The Shiite and Sunni are not fighting because they see less of each other. During the intense fighting, whichever group was the minority eventually fled to an area safer for them. Shiite in Shiite neighborhoods, Sunni in Sunni neighborhoods. The surge started after most of the violence had ceased.
Taka313 at 09:54 AM JST - 20th September

Betzee,

Otherwise known as the "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to face them here" rationale.

And we're facing them in Iraq because we care so much about the Iraqis that we bring our war to their door.

With friends like that...who needs enemies, eh?

Taka
jwills79 at 07:34 AM JST - 21st September

With America facing historic debt, multiple war fronts, stumbling health care, a weakened dollar, all-time high prison population, skyrocketing Federal spending, mortgage crises, bank foreclosures, etc. etc., this is an unusually critical election year. The idea of “leadership” must be broadened from mere “experience” to include knowledge, ability to learn and insight.

Let's look at the educational background of your two options:

Obama: Occidental College - Two years. Columbia University - B.A. political science with a specialization in international relations. Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

& Biden: University of Delaware - B.A. in history and B.A. in political science. Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

vs.

McCain: United States Naval Academy - Class rank 894 of 899

& Palin: Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in journalism

Now, which team are you going to hire ?