EDITORIAL: Obama's leadership in doubt

A great big thank you to the Washington Times for once again pointing up a huge difference between these two candidates, and highlighting Barack Hussein Obama's uninformed waffling on one of the most serious issues that the next president will face. Fighting and winning the war on terror is not only important for the United States, but for every country in the world. Terrorists can and will strike anywhere. Hence defeating them in Iraq and Afghanistan is important.

To be a successful leader you have to lead. You have to be in control and accountable to the situation, tactically and strategically. Recent events have indicated that Obama lets the situation control him. This is not leadership, it is a boxer on the ropes.

I don't think make a claim that this administration has been "in control and accountable to the situation" stands up to reason. I think they can certainly be said to have continued on the exact same course of failure for four years. The surge worked, and I'm happy that it did, but I had no reason to believe it would based on everything else that failed before it. I personally think that great leaders always have the ability to assess information and make changes as needed and I wouldn't ever see an evolving thought process as anything other than a strength. I don't happen to think that John Sidney McCain is one that's overly capable of evolving and reacting to world events. I guess we're including middle names for a reason, right? I mean, Barack Obama is clearly a terrorist, right Matt? Either come out and say it or stay on the playground with the other 12 year-olds.

Like most liberals, how often Barack H-----n Obama is wrong has nothing to do with anything. His intentions are good and that is what matters. Then again, most 12 year olds have good intentions but we don't let them make life and death decisions for all of us. Regardless of John Sidney McCain's intentions, he appears to have been right. But I have to give Obama his due. He has demonstrated the ability to assess information (the polls and focus group feedback) and change (positions).

I don't think the surge working after four years of being wrong qualifies as McCain being right. I'm glad he backed the surge, I'm glad it worked, but you are not only represented by your last move. How about we split the difference and agree that McCain was wrong on the war but right on the surge; Obama was right on the war and wrong on the surge and move along.

Cut and run from Iraq was disastrous thinking by Obama and liberals who think like him. Fortunately for the US, Iraq and the rest of the world, the disaster was contained to Obama and his head in the sand followers.

"Surge" didn't work. The casualties we did not take in Iraq we are now taking in Afghanistan because we moved soldiers from Afghanistan into Iraq. Duh. CENTCOM knew and said the "surge" could not be maintained for long. It was arranged by scraping the bottom of a very empty military barrel, and we are now in the middle of trying desperately to keep some soldiers in Iraq until the Election, to help the GOP and John McCain keep up this transparent fiction. When "This war will be brief" John McCain is able to walk freely in that Baghdad market without the benefit of friendly rooftop snipers, a combat battalion plus for escort, tactical support in the air, and full body armor, maybe then I'll take a closer look. Not before.

Yes, we definitely need an expert in international affairs as our next President. A guy like McCain who recently stated: "I was concerned about a couple of steps that the Russian government took in the last several days. One was reducing the energy supplies to Czechoslovakia." And back in May, McBush vowed to "work closely with Czechoslovakia” on missile defense." Last fall, during one of the Republican debates, McBush stated, "The first thing I would do is make sure that we have a missile defense system in place in Czechoslovakia . . ." And to top it off, back in the 2000 campaign, McBush was chided by another foreign affairs expert, G. W. Bush, who remarked, "A guy gets up and quizzes me on world leaders, but John McCain says something about the ‘ambassador to Czechoslovakia.’" Well, I know there is no Czechoslovakia [there’s a Czech Republic and a Slovakia], but yet it didn’t make the nightly national news." Of course, there is no country by the name of Czechoslovakia. Old McBush is obviously terribly confused. I don't suppose it will be long before McBush will tell us about the need to rid Czechoslovakia of the Taliban. Oh, wait, does he even know who the Taliban are? After all, he has frequently confused the principal "players" in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. In spite of having been repeatedly corrected.

and now for the umpteenth time....Hoorah the surge worked. What did we win? Can anyone tell me what WE will win in Iraq? I know what the Iraqi's win on the bodies of our dead but just what did we win? P.S. I'm tired of paying for Iraq in either money or dead. It's time already. Let's stop paying for this boondoggle.

"Yes, we definitely need an expert in international affairs as our next President. A guy like McCain who recently stated:" Did McCain say the surge won't work? After all, the surge was the most important decision made by a President in many years. Any one running for the office of President needed sound judgement to determine the best course of action, just like the President did. If McCain said the surge won't work, no sane person should vote for him.

Yeah, McCain is a real surge expert. In late May, McCain claimed that American troops have been drawn down to pre-surge levels. They have not, of course. Or consider his position vis-a-vis a the U.S. presence in Iraq: 2005: McCain believed that the Iraqis populace resented our military presence. He therefore concluded that the U.S. should reject a Korea-like model for long-term troop deployment in Iraq. He stated publicly that U.S. ‘visibility’ was detrimental to the Iraq mission and that Iraqis viewed America’s presence very negatively. Curiously these were the very positions held by both Obama and Hilary Clinton.” 2006: McCain changed course and embraced the Korea model for a long-term military presence in Iraq. 2007: During an interview with Chalie Rose, McCain changed his mind again, publicly stating that the Korean analogy would not work and should not be employed. 2008: McCain flip-flopped yet again, citing the Korean model and deciding that we should be prepared to leave troops in Iraq, even if it means 100 years or more. And each time old McConfused flips and flops, he denies having done so, claiming his positions vis-a-vis Iraq have been consistent for years. Perhaps he is so confused that he can not remember his positions from day to day. The list goes on and on. For example, McCain, the great Foreign Affairs expert has - been confused about the source of violence in Iraq; - been confused about Iran’s relationship with al Qaeda; - been confused about the difference between Sunni and Shi’ia; - has been confused about Gen. Petraeus’ responsibilities in Iraq; - has been confused about what transpired during the Maliki government’s recent offensive in Basra. And in November, 2006, he was so confused about the war that he couldn't do a live television interview without reading prepared notes. Yeah this confused, bewildered and baffled old man is a real expert on international affairs. Just the kind of guy this country needs to follow the current creature in the White House.

if you refuse to out obama's leaders, by fretting about his leadership potential, vide "how can an imbecile have any leadership potential in the first place!" we are headed toward a civil war here. most americans outside of the liberaljewalia that is ny, ct, nj, il, and ca. will not suffer the injustice of having the liberal jewish media foist off on them as president one of the stupidest fools ever to help ruin the liberal jew ghetto that is chicago! how odd that liberals who mocked bush's intelligence for so long have failed to notice that without a teleprompter b.o. has less intelligence than the geico gecko. ah, liberals, the more you know them the more you wanna just throw up.

Didn't say this administration was in control and accountable. Read the statement, it was a definition of leadership and a perception of how Obama is missing it.

Delacruz has all the wrong facts and opinions of what is in the record. West Germany still has an American Occupation force 53 years after the end of World War II. An American presence in Iraq that helped stabilize the Middle East would be to every countries benefit. Obama couldn't cast a vote in the Illinois Senate without pushing the wrong button. Does anyone want a President who voted "present" 150 times in Illinois where the stakes are small because he couldn't take a position on votes. The positive influence of free trade agreements helps the US in global trade. Obama opposes them because of AFL-CIO union pressure. http://www.export.gov/fta/ McCain favors participation in the global economy using the leverage offered by FTAs.

Websurfer blathered: "Delacruz has all the wrong facts and opinions of what is in the record." Wow, that is an impressive statement! Perhaps you could be a bit more specific about exactly what facts of mine are wrong. Or do you just make silly claims without any basis in fact? If you can not refute the information that I have posted -- all of which is easily verifiable -- the only effect of your statement above is to make a liar of you.