|
 |
|
| SUPPORT |
WRITE
YOUR |
| TERM |
CONGRESSMAN |
| LIMITS |
IT WORKS !!! |
|
|
Obama's Trip: Some Questions Katie, Brian and Charles Should Ask
The article on this page is owned
and copyrighted by the named author
Link
to original
article: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2008/07/24/obamas_trip_some_questions_katie,_brian_and_charles_should_ask
Larry Elder
July 24, 2008
Q: Before your trip to Iraq, you said that you intend to give the
military a "new mission" -- all of the combat troops withdrawn within
16 months. Why bother traveling to Iraq and consulting with commanders
on the ground, if you've already decided on a new mission?
Q: In 2004, you called it unwise to announce a timetable. By 2008,
however, you announce a 16-month timetable. Only a few days ago, your
top campaign strategist stated that you were "not wedded" to that
timetable. The next day, you reiterated your 16-month timetable, but
added it's important not to "undo" our gains. Isn't this confusing?
Q: On Iran, you criticized Bush for leaving all options on the table up
to and including a "military option." And during the campaign season,
you criticized Sen. Clinton for voting to call the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard a terror organization. But you later said that, as
to Iran, all military options are on the table, and said that you
consider the Revolutionary Guard a terror organization. Did the facts
change or the politics change?
Q: You announced support for a two-state solution between the Israelis
and the Palestinians, with Jerusalem as the undivided capital of
Israel. The next day, you reversed course, leaving the disposition of
Jerusalem a matter to be negotiated between the Israelis and the
Palestinians. Can you clarify?
Q: You said you would sit down, without preconditions, with leaders
like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and Kim Jong Il of North Korea. You
later agreed to hold such talks only under prearranged conditions. You
further stated that such talks would occur only when and if you choose
to hold them. Again, please clarify.
Q: You point to Kennedy's 1961 summit with Khrushchev, held without
preconditions. But Kennedy's secretary of State, Dean Rusk, advised
against the meeting, and Kennedy later declared the talks a disaster.
Many historians say that Khrushchev sized up Kennedy as a novice, which
emboldened Khrushchev in building the Berlin Wall and in putting
missiles in Cuba. Is it wise to hold up the Kennedy/Khrushchev summit
as a model?
Q: The Canadians recently agreed to accept 550 tons of yellowcake from
Iraq. The Associated Press called it the remaining portion of Saddam
Hussein's "nuclear program." David Kay, the weapons hunter, found no
stockpiles of WMD, but maintained that Saddam Hussein possessed the
intent and capacity to restart his chemical and biological program
following the lifting of sanctions. Was President Bush, therefore,
correct in saying that Saddam posed a "grave and gathering threat"?
Q: Before you joined the Senate, you said that you opposed this war.
But you later said that you understood how and why your Senate
colleagues voted for the war, that they were "privy" to national
security information you did not have. You also said the vote must have
been "difficult." Your nomination opponents Dodd, Biden, Edwards and
Clinton -- all in the Senate at the time -- voted for the war. How can
you be so certain that had you been in the Senate, you would have voted
against the war?
Q: Some argue that if the United States does not attack Iran before
they get a nuclear weapon, Israel will. Do you believe this is true? If
so, what will the U.S. do, especially since many will blame the U.S.
anyway?
Q: In stating your intention to end the Iraq war, you say it costs $10
billion per month. But you, as does John McCain, intend to leave a
"residual force." Can you give us the size of that force, and provide a
cost estimate?
Q: Since the surge, 15 of the 18 benchmarks have been met. The Sunnis,
who boycotted Parliament, have now rejoined it. Polls show Iraqis more
optimistic about their country's future than Americans are about ours.
At the provincial level, oil revenues are being shared, and Iraq's oil
production is at a postwar high. But for the surge, wouldn't things in
Iraq now be substantially worse?
Q: You opposed the Iraq war and the surge. If you had gotten your way,
wouldn't al-Maliki and other members of the Iraqi government, with whom
you have met, be in exile, in jail or dead?
Q: New York Times reporter John Burns estimates that under Saddam
Hussein -- through war and terror -- up to a million Iraqis may have
died. Is the world better off without Saddam Hussein?
Q: We have not been hit on American soil in the seven years since 9/11.
In the last five years, no major American facility in the entire world
has sustained a terror attack. Does President Bush deserve any credit
for this?
Q: Estimates for the monetary cost of 9/11 range from $600 billion to
$1 trillion. Is it not possible, just possible, that Bush's actions --
including beefing up Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, increased
surveillance, and especially the war in Iraq -- have prevented another
9/11?
Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
