Solid.

audience to thing bigger

I think whatever disease I have you are catching.

Stupid keyboard!

To me, this is how you make news. You lay out a vision, and challenge your opponent to meet it. (Which Grampy McSame can't do).

Make no mistake, this was a complicated, interconnected speech; then again, it's a complicated interconnected world.

And let's start the countdown to when the first e-mail will come from the McCain campaign saying...."Obama doesn't want to kill Al Qaeda!!!"

And then we can start the second countdown to when Halperin will blast that quote from The Page, all the while wiping barbecue sauce from his fingers...

The MSM's head is going to explode....

Too bad Obama can't borrow Doc's De Loren time machine. He could be just like Marty McFly and go back in time to fix everything..

This is a terrific speech in offering a complex vision of the future of American foreign policy. Obama is astonishingly good at these major speeches. Talk about Straight Talk.

I'm not sure I agree with all the metaphors about Obama gambling, doubling down, etc. These are positions he has long held, and the worst that can come from this speech is that 1) its coherence gives McCain something to work against and 2) it could be ignored by the rest of the nation. (I'm sure the campaign is worried that some new gaffe -- by anyone -- will knock the speech off the news cycle.)

But the gambling metaphors suggest that Obama is there trying to game the system, to pull one over on the voters and/ or McCain. What makes him a powerful politician is that he can absorb all the ticky-tack bullshit and then put the issue in a broader perspective. Sure, if this were a town hall meeting or a VFW picnic, it would be misguided. But considering that this is a major policy speech, I think he's not risking anything; he's just exceeding our conventionally low expectations.

What other candidate could pull something like this off? I can't remember one in my lifetime.

I can remember two who could have das. JFK might have in Vietnam if he'd lived and RFK definately would have if he'd lived. The corrupt South Vietnamese still wouldn't have survived but nobody ever could have fixed that. Will Maliki's government? Who knows. I suspect Sadr's homegrown boys will take over from the former exiles in the years to come peacefully or not. That's probably for the good, he's more nationalistic and less beholden to Iran than they are.

That speech hit the nail on the head and earned another donation from me. Every speech like this (and every kick-ass TV ad) is worth a little more green. Rewarding excellence.

Greg, good assesment bro.

While, we cannot fault Obama, it's dissappointing Obama's Iraq narrative has been eclipsed by the on going economic crissis this morning,and unsolicited attention for the New Yorker cover page, et al.

I'm looking forward to the posting of McCain's speech, especially the part where he calls for two war czars to replace the one who isn't doing anything now. Double down indeed.

It was important that Obama establishes himself on Iraq BEFORE he goes there for while he was there and didn't reiterate his support for ending the war before he had left, the MSM/McCain camp would be talking about Obama flip flopping on Iraq.

Now they will talk about will Obama be "rigid" on his proposal.

I would argue that is is better to be perceived as rigid on his Iraq proposal in the eyes of the American people and the liberal base than it is to be a flip flopper on Obama's signature issue.

What Obama needs to do when he comes back from Iraq is to TIE the Iraq war with the crappy economy.

Greg: Nice work as always...

Your betting analogy reminds me of an article in the LA Times by David Mamet regarding politics and poker. Basically states that Kerry should have raised Bush to "I went, he didn't. End of story" on the Swifties.

Sorry but I'm an html knucklehead.
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/sep/16/opinion/oe-mamet16

Cheers.
Get some sleep, will ya?

sullynyc

What "big gamble"? Not a big gamble in this speech, at all.

A "big gamble," per Juan Cole, would be for Obama to announce that, excepting much more cooperation from Pakistan, he's going to pull us out of Afghanistan as well as Iraq.

I don't know what the congress is going to look like in January but it's a sure bet that Obama is going to need every possible congressperson on board to make stuff happen. I hope as many repugs as possible are gone so we have a chance. The idea that Obama has doubled down is exactly right. I don't know if I'd call it betting the house but Obama is laying down some serious jack. I'm happy to see someone with balls who is betting on regular Americans for a change.

If you folks on this site truely believe the MSM is fair or neutral, then you are part of the 35% that would vote for Stalin if he had a D behind his name.

Yeah, the speech sounds good, and I do give him credit for addressing issues that most politicians would avoid. But speeches and actions are two different things. Obama is great on talk, but I'm increasingly disappointed by his actions. He did speak out against the war initially, but he has certainly supported Bush in his funding requests.

And let's face it: Obama really won't have a lot of control over what happens in Iraq. Whatever they say in public, Republicans and Democrats both understand the reasons for this war: We went in because we wanted a base in the Middle East and we wanted oil. No matter how much the Democrats criticize Bush over the war, they accept the rationale and probably won't do much to change the policy. My feeling is that whoever is elected, Obama or McCain, they'll bring some troops home to placate the public, but they'll leave a substantial force in Iraq. Even if the conflict quiets down, the people who are running the show want to have at least 50,000 troops in the Middle East. That's been a goal of the US government for decades, and no matter who is president or who controls Congress, that policy is not going to change.

A dead or captured al qaida/taliban operative in Afghanistan is worth ten in Iraq.

SEN. McCain's SUPPORT FOR THE INVASION OF AN ALMOST DEFENSELESS AND EFFECTIVELY CONTAINED AND UN SC SANCTIONED, AND INTERNATIONALLY (UN SC) MONITORED IRAQ AND HIS PRESENT POSITION ON THE COUNTRY WOULD PROVE TO BE HIS GREATEST UNDOING IN HIS PRESIDENTIAL BID UNLESS OBAMA ALLOWS HIM TO DODGE THE MAIN ISSUES SURROUNDING THE WAR AND ITS SHORT AND LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES.

Obama must beware that a carefully planned and concerted efforts by McCain and the Republican Party would be made to shift attention away from the main issues involved in the Iraq war and pretend and try to make the issue of stability the overriding factor for which success or failure of the war should be judged by the voters in November. That is as if Iraq before the invasion was not more stable, more prosperous, and more secure from terrorist take-over than it is now, even after the surge in troop deployment.

Now, here is a good example of how the public are manipulated, dis-informed, and confused, and misled, with attention being diverted from the main issue of the overriding judgment in going to war at all, and the numerous adverse consequences of war, past, present and future. "Sen. McCain supports Gen. [David] Petraeus's view that Iraq is the central front in the war in terror. That doesn't mean that Afghanistan and Pakistan aren't incredibly important, but to suggest that we write off Iraq … is just unsound," said McCain campaign senior foreign policy adviser Kori Schake. "And it is part of a series of judgments that Sen. Obama and his campaign have made that have just been wrong."
The important point that Schake ignorantly or deliberately, and thus, fraudulently fails to note here is that Iraq was never the central front in the war on terror before the invasion, and that it was the invasion, championed by McCain as one of the worst of series of his bad judgments, that turned Iraq into a terrorist focal point and a rich training and hunting ground for terrorists. In addition, Schake fails to tell us how to justify already incurred and further human, economic, strategic, diplomatic, national security costs of the war to Americans, if at the end of it all, it would be the Ayatollahs of Iran that will be dictating the policies for the American installed government that came to power and remains in power over American blood and at the cost of the ruin of American economy.

Yet, and again, Republican John McCain's camp charged that Obama would trade defeat in Iraq for victory in the US presidential race. This is strange it is McCain that has been playing the tough military guy from the start and considers keeping that position for his own self image at the expense of US strategic interests and national security. The Iraq war was lost by the US before it was started because the goal and objective set by McCain and other proponents of war for the war, due to bad judgment, was quite unbelievably too visibly against the US strategic and other key interests. It was a war by the US, against the US, and for Iran. If f the US is fighting against its own interests, the only way it can truly win is to "lose", and the sure way to lose is to "win". How are the mighty fallen in Iraq. Tell it not in Tehran, publish it not in Washington, how the US war against itself and lost to Iran in Iraq. It is all a matter of bad judgment, thanks to Sen. McCain the tough military man of his word.
For Sen. McCain, to prove that he's a tough military man that does not flip flop, the Iraq war must be won on his own terms, and at whatever cost. It does not matter whether that "win" only goes on to strengthen Iran strategically, militarily, economically, politically by helping it to gain influence over Iraq and its oil. McCain's "win" in Iraq is worth losing the war on terror, is worth letting Osama bin Laden and other leaders of 9/11 run free to continue to organize and plan other terrorist acts. McCain's "win" would not mind letting Iran acquire nuclear weapons while US is prevented from taking military action against Iran's nuclear weapons projects for fear of endangering the lives of US troops in Iraq. Sen. McCain does not care what his Iraq "win" is costing the US in terms of losses of life and financial and economic resources badly needed to revamp the economy and make life better and more secure for millions of Americans. Sen. McCain's "win" in Iraq, to him, is worth losing every other war just as long as he is able to boast that that he is a tough military man that does not change his position whether he later found it wrong or not, it does not matter whether that position is sinking his country or not, it does not matter how many American lives are sacrificed for helping Iran.

A lot have been said about the Iraq war that completely failed to address the most important issues and effects of the war in relation to US security and strategic interest in the Middle East, Israeli security, growth of Iranian influence and the empowering of the radical Shiites as against the weakening of Sunnis in the region at the expense of thousands of American lives and cost of billions US dollars of American tax payers' money.

Does Sen. McCain want pretend that he does not know, or is he really ignorant of the fact that the current Shiite government installed by American forces is more pro-Iran than pro-American? Otherwise, how can we explain its taking sides with Iran to openly support for Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces in Lebanon in its unprovoked attack against Israel, the chief American ally in the Middle-East? A clear anti-American position indeed!

Is it really difficult for Sen. McCain to understand the current Iraqi government installed by protected by American lives, and at the cost of the ruin of American economy, cannot enter into any significant deal with the US without the approval of Iran? Is it really hard for Sen. McCain to understand the recent request of the Iraqi government for a time-table for the withdrawal of American forces is being dictated by Iran?

The then USSR went into Afghanistan to support a pro-USSR government. That was understandable. Sen. McCain's best judgment made him to push for the invasion of Iraq to install and maintain a staunchly pro-Iranian Shiite government at all-American cost. What a judgment?

This is the real issue that McCain should be forced to engage in, and must not be allowed to escape from.

The Worst Ever Blunder in the US Foreign, Defense and Strategic Policy

A detailed analysis of the short term and the long term effects of the war will completely undermine McCain's credentials as a preferable candidate on defense, foreign affairs, and national security, and consequently, the economy and health care. That is why the Republican Party and its nominee for president, Senator McCain, would dread to make Iraq war an issue in the presidential campaign. They are going to try to remove the Iraq war as an issue by trying to hide the important issues and effects of the war as stated in the opening paragraph above by pretending that the main issue is just about stability in Iraq regardless of beneficiary of the stability.

When a Shiite government in Iraq that openly takes an anti-US and pro-Iranian position to support Hezbollah against Israel was installed and is being protected at the cost thousands of lives of US soldiers, we know something is terribly wrong with that judgment and must be corrected without delay.

When this same Iraqi government as mentioned above has to go and get approval from the religious leader of Iran before it can enter any security arrangement/agreement with the US, then we know who exactly is in control of Iraq, and we know that something is terribly wrong which must be addressed at once.

And when this same Iraqi government mentioned above with or without consultation with the US or with or without US approval is obliged to enter a pledge with Iran that under no circumstances would it allow Iraqi territory to be used by the US to attack Iran, thus effectively reducing the US forces in Iraq to hostages in case of war between the US and Iran, then we know that, with such judgment, something is terribly amiss, which must be rectified immediately.

And when McCain the presidential nominee of the Republican Party, going further with his wrong judgment, is pledging to continue this disastrous course in Iraq, we know that it is the same as saying we should be sending US troops to protect the anti-US Shiite regime in Iran in the name of stabilizing Iran, and we know that is contrary to US strategic interest and does not in any way enhance US security, and we know the US electorate, when they know this real issue, will surely reject and overwhelmingly vote against any such unrivaled strategic, military, security, defense, and diplomatic and foreign policy blunder in US history.

The last time the US helped, how-be-it unwittingly, install an anti-US Islamic regime in power was in Afghanistan. The result was the 9/11 terrorist attack on the US soil that killed thousands of US civilians, hardworking Americans, the handwork of the Taliban Islamic government and the al Qaida terrorist forces that the US helped to train and install in power in Afghanistan.

A Bitter Truth Spoken in Disguised As Joke to Lessen Its Negative Impact

When Senator McCain seemingly joke about US troops staying in Iraq for hundred years, he spoke a HARD BITTER TRUTH in a way that people will not pay attention so as to avert the uproar/outrage that it should have drawn from the American public. But for those who took it as a joke, they should now relate that "joke" with his comparison of the duration of the stay of US troop in Iraq to the same as in Japan, Korea, and Europe when he appeared recently on NBC's "Today" Show and argued, as he has before, that "it's not important" when troops return from Iraq as long as casualties are held to a minimum. The big difference this time, however, is that in Iraq the US has to, at the cost of the lives of thousands of its troops, overthrow/dethrone Sunnis from power in order to enthrone the Shiites that are allied to its sworn enemy in the region, Shiite Iran. The moderate Arab states in the region which are friendly or allied to the US are mainly Sunnis.

McCain has also been quoted as saying recently, with regard to the Iraq war, "We are succeeding and it's fascinating that Senator Obama still doesn't realize that." The question which McCain should be made to answer is as to what goal or objective "we are succeeding" at achieving. Surely, McCain must be able to tell us what short term or long term gain, benefit or advantage is what he says is being successfully achieved by the Iraq war to the US, and how the waging of the war and its cost can be justified by that achievement. What did the US benefit from stable Afghanistan under the Taliban government which it helped to install? Answer: A free haven for al Qaida for recruitment, training and equipment of anti-US terrorists with the full protection of the Afghan Taliban government.

Other questions that are of particular interest to the American electorate, and which senator McCain should answer very honestly include what he thinks as to whether Iraq is of a greater security, strategic and military threat to the US today or not than it was before the invasion. Put in another way, the question is: What, if any, can the Republican nominee point at as short-term or long-term military, strategic, political, economic, diplomatic, defense/national security, or international security gains achieved as a result of the US military invasion? And could such gains have been possible or better achieved without the invasion? What has been the cost of the invasion to the US, to Iraq, to the US allies - Israel and the moderate Arab nations - in the region? What does senator McCain consider to be the real or apparent incentives by which he wants to HONESTLY persuade the US voters that all the costs, human, military, economic, political, strategic, diplomatic, financial, and other costs, already incurred and which will be or will likely be incurred, are justifiable and worthy to be paid by the US tax payers?

Who, which country, which government, or which organization or group has benefited the most as a result of the US invasion of Iraq? The answer: Iran and the al Qaida. Is the US-installed Shiite government in Iraq today more, or less, pro-Iranian or anti-Iranian than the Sunni government that the US overthrew by the US invasion? Has the Iranian Shiite leadership greater or less influence on the US-installed Shiite government of today's Iraq than it had on the Sunni-led one of Saddam which the US overthrew? In countering the Iranian threat, influence, and power in the Middle-East today, can the US reliably count any more on the US-trained Shiite component of the Iraqi military of today than on the members of the defunct Saddam-trained Baathist military? Is the US engagement in Iraq today enhancing or hindering it in confronting and handling the current Iranian nuclear threat? If it is conclusively proved today that Iran is on the verge of making nuclear bomb and there is an immediate need for military strikes on targets in Iran to remove that threat, would the current massive presence of the US forces in Iraq make that decision easier to make, or would it complicate it and make more difficult than if there was no such US presence to consider? Does senator McCain think that the US has overall benefited more than Iran with the current situation in Iraq? What are the chances that the US stands to benefit more than Iran with the present trends and tendencies, and what are the main obstacles to such benefits, and how could they be overcome?

There are no easy choices left for the US in Iraq. The invasion has handed Iran a great victory much bigger than it could ever hope or pray for. A great military a victory without firing a single shot, and without losing a man! It is all achieved at the cost of precious American and Iraqi lives. Iran would surely claim victory over the US when it eventually withdraws its forces from Iraq. Iran is already claiming its big price by dictating what policies the Iraqi government must pursue in relation to the US. HOWEVER, IF IRAN IS ALLOWED TO ACQUIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONS AS IT IS SPEEDILY ASPIRING TO DO, THE IRAQ PRICE WOULD BE FAR TOO SMALL TO COMPARE WITH THE GREAT THREAT IT WOULD POSE TO THE WORLD. That is why a strategy of minimizing the shame of withdrawal may be far more outweighed by the very urgent need to stop and prevent Iran from acquiring the nuclear weapon. That is a judgment that Sen. McCain must now come to terms with, and thereby admit all his wrong judgment so far on Iraq. Time is running out to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The longer it is delayed, the greater the danger.