As much as CNN tries to cover for the Obamessiah, even they acknowledge at the end of the report that is what he is doing. And while the story is couched in terms of “both candidates are changing,” the fact is McCain has not, and is not, changing.
Maybe Obama read this Washington Post editorial last week suggesting he would have to change his position on Iraq because (dammit) we are winning the freakin’ thing.
Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained “special groups” that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans. It is — of course — too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments — and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the “this-war-is-lost” caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). [snip]
If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq’s 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.
Love that last line about needing a plan for success. We all know the left had its plan for defeat. That plan hasn’t worked out so well for them. Why the hell should we now trust any Democrat to come up with a plan for success, especially the cut-and-run types like Obama? They told us that we lost the war. They have forfeited their right to claim any part of the success in Iraq, and proven themselves untrustworthy to manage it going forward. Let’s not forget, Bush got all the blame when it was going badly, and now he gets all the credit.
Also find Bill Dupray at The Patriot Room
Now that Obama has clinched the nomination he no longer needs the nutroots that fueled his bid against Hillary Clinton. He needs more centrist Democrats and Independents who would be turned off if he continued with the same lines of defeat and withdrawal that he had been using up until recently.
And of course the Obamatons won’t care that they are being shafted AGAIN, as they were by Democrats running for Congress in 2006. The only thing they care about is power.
P.S. We are going to start withdrawing from Iraq as the VICTORY we see on the ground now is secured. And you can bet Obama will try and claim credit for both the victory and getting the troops out.
Pass the barf bag. First, these reporters(?) are so damn biased, it’s oozing out of their foreheads. They are spinning the victory ala, “for now” instead of reporting that Al-qeada has been crushed in Iraq and popular muslim opinion is turning against their horrific violence.
Second, they are providing lots of pivot room for Obama because they know he must start to convince us that well, of course I’m glad things are working out. His butt boy, Axlerod, stated last week, why Obama has said all along that a surge of troops would lower violence-LIAR
MM,
You guys are sure obsessed with bodily functions. Scrapiron has liberals wetting their beds on another thread and you have conservatives blowing chunks while the media oozes its bias out of its foreheads and Obama has a “butt boy.” Do you think maybe we could raise the level of the rhetoric just a tad?
Absolutely, but we’ll be sorry to see you go.
🙂
Aye Chi,
I have no intention of going. And I promise never to use a bodily function metaphor. If I do call me on it. Believe me it’s not squeamishness, it’s just that scatology gets in the way of rigorous rational discussion because it’s just too easy.
We don’t need that crap.
Well, don’t look now but ….
🙂
See, the barf bag, butt boy, and oozing bias references threw me off my game.
You can’t surrender in an occupation. Nor can you have a VICTORY in an occupation. The latter occurred in March 2003.
Just for discussion. The following is a quote from the testimony of Ryan Crocker before a House Committee in September 2007:
“Electricity supply has improved in many parts of the country, but is woefully inadequate in Baghdad. Many neighborhoods in the city receive two hours a day or less from the national grid, although power supplies for essential services such as water pumping stations or hospitals are much better. The Minister of Electricity said last week that it would take $25 billion through 2016 to meet demand requirements, but that by investing the $2 billion a year the Ministry is now receiving from the government’s budget, as well as private investment in power generation, that goal could be met.”
Success in Iraq involves stability. And stability, among other things, requires an adequate infrastructure. A reduction in violence wrought by additional troops and deals cut with Sunni warlords (Remember Afghanistan in the 80’s) are not enough.
Just keep moving those goal posts Dave and hope no one notices.
If you woe is us nitpickers had been around during the 1960’s we never would have gone to the moon.
We didn’t really go to the moon.
That was a movie set.
Or somethin’ like that.
Wait, I’m the one who’s saying we won the Iraq War in March 2003. We crossed the goal line
(just working with your chosen metaphor here). If so why are we still in Iraq and when can we leave? Where did you put the goal posts? If we’re still in Iraq our job there must not be finished yet. Let’s avoid the terms victory and success for the sake of clarity and simplicity. When will the job be done?
Your question has been answered in the main part of this thread.
“Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable;”
Sounds familiar. Wonder where we’ve heard that before?
According to the Army Corp of Engineers, Baghdad has electricity for 12 hrs. p day, when the power goes down enterprising Iraqis in some neighborhoods have a system of generators that kick in. Is it perfect, of course not, but repairing and rebuilding an antiquated system that’s been neglected for centuries will take the time and money the Iraqis, Crocker, etc. have already acknowledged.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/general/1360748/in_baghdad_power_supply_may_get_worse/index.html
Missy,
That doesn’t even begin to answer my question. You mistake rhetoric for a concrete plan. You can’t tell when you’ve finished a job unless you know what the job is. What is our current job in Iraq?
Sounds like Ryan Crocker needs to talk to the Army Corps of Engineers or they need to get the message to him before he testifies to Congress. Or are you suggesting that in the 7 months since he testified they went from 2 hours a day to 12 hours a day? Thank you for the link I will check it.
Dave: Your comments are typical of the non-serious lefties who simply want to play games while undermining support for one of the most important national security goals our nation has faced this decade.
Quibbling over what are essentially minor points is what Obama would call a “distraction” from the real issue as to how we succeed.
You DO want us to win don’t you Dave? You DO understand the benefits of a VICTORY in Iraq don’t you Dave?
Please don’t waste my time with a response that asks to define what Victory is. It’s clear enough.
The article was from 28April08.
From the White House
VICTORY IN IRAQ DEFINED
As the central front in the global war on terror, success in Iraq is an essential element in the long war against the ideology that breeds international terrorism. Unlike past wars, however, victory in Iraq will not come in the form of an enemy’s surrender, or be signaled by a single particular event — there will be no Battleship Missouri, no Appomattox. The ultimate victory will be achieved in stages, and we expect:
In the short term:
An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy.
In the medium term:
An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential.
In the longer term:
An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.
An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html#part1
In short:
“Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable;”
BTW, from an article I read this a.m., Iraqi officials are already discussing a future when they no longer will need to depend on coalition forces and we can leave. Sunnis from Anbar are volunteering to help with the fight in Afghanistan. They think they’ve got this thing won, how could they possibly know?
Thank you Missy. I know you made an honest effort, but the official White House version, though more comprehensive than the shortened version, is no more specific. A plan needs specific metrics, benchmarks.
Will the job be done when the short term goals are met? I don’t think so because they merely describe process and progress, not an end state. General Petraeus himself admits the progress we have made is “fragile.”
Will the job be done when the medium term goals are met – What does “in the lead” mean? Or more pointedly “well on their way”? When I pull out of my driveway in the morning I can argue I’m well on my way to work. Can I say I’m well on my way to work after I’ve gone at least halfway? Why isn’t one-third of the way to work “well on my way” to work? I would argue that at that point I’ve made substantial progress in my trip to work. Do you see the problem?
Or will the job be done when we reach the long term goals? I have to say that looks an awful long way off and I think you would be very hard put to find someone inside or outside the Administration that was particularly sanguine about reaching those goals.
“An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.” That is a pretty lofty goal for a country that was cobbled together out of the remnants of the Ottoman Empire with no regard to potential ethnic and tribal conflict (and possibly with just the opposite goal) and that for 35 years was ruled by a brutal dictatorship. We on the other hand were heirs to the Enlightenment and an imperfect but effective constitutional monarchy. Our “man on the horse” got down off his horse and became our first president. We were uniquely blessed.
What has to happen in Iraq before we can withdraw the first pre-surge unit?
P.S: Could you give me a link or direct me to the article you read this morning?
John Roberts is loathesome. CNN is loathesome.
Notice they said nothing about the support for the surge.
McCain has changed not at all.
The article is linked in this blog entry:
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=8671
I linked to the blog article because I agree with most of what the author says as he analyzed the WaPo column.
Even though I have a loved one in the fight and have the utmost care and concern for bloggers from FA that have been there and will probably go again, I don’t think we need to be in a hurry to leave Iraq.
OBL and Zawahiri are clearly losing their chosen central front in the war(Iraq), they still have much to draw from in Pakistan while they wait for the US to become complacent. And, Iran will continue their attempts to muck up any progress made by Iraq and Coalition forces. The war doesn’t end because Iraq becomes peaceful. As the President said in the beginning, our efforts in the global conflict will take generations. It’s my opinion that the longer the Iraqis allow us to stay in country, the better it will be for us in the long run.