Our Choice For Commander In Chief

Spread the love

Loading

Excellent rundown by The Weekly Standard of the differences between Obama’s pre-surge strategy and McCain’s:

It would be hard to design a better test for the job of commander in chief than the real-life test senators John McCain and Barack Obama have undergone in the last two years. As the situation in Iraq deteriorated during 2006 and the war reached its most critical moment, both senators served on national security committees: McCain on Armed Services, Obama on Foreign Relations. From those positions, with access to classified situation reports as well as the public testimony and private advice of those who knew the situation in Iraq best, each man reached an understanding of the facts on the ground and the interests at stake. And each proposed a strategy. It was as close as a presidential candidate could get to showing how he would respond to a national security crisis without already being in the White House.

Both men’s proposals are a matter of public record, available on the Internet. McCain set forth his in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute on January 5, 2007 (at an event marking the release of AEI’s “Choosing Victory,” which I wrote, outlining a strategy like the one Bush later ordered). Obama presented his in the “Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 “ (S. 433), which he introduced in the Senate on January 30. We also know the strategy the president chose–the surge of forces he announced on January 10, very similar to what McCain described–and the outcome it has brought.

McCain predicted that the violence would spike once the surge started but would slowly abate and “pave the way for a political settlement.”

Obama’s ideas for the Iraq war?

Obama’s legislation forbade the surge and ordered most U.S. troops out of Iraq by the spring of 2008. It said,

The redeployment of the Armed Forces under this section shall be substantial, shall occur in a gradual manner, and shall be executed at a pace to achieve the goal of the complete redeployment of all United States combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group, if all the matters set forth in subsection (b)(1)(B) are not met by such date, subject to the exceptions for retention of forces for force protection, counter-terrorism operations, training of Iraqi forces, and other purposes as contemplated by subsection (g).

In the media, Obama repeatedly predicted that the surge would fail. The day the president announced the new policy, Obama told Larry King he “did not see anything” in the president’s surge that would “make a significant dent in the sectarian violence.” The same day, he said on MSNBC,

We all know what happened. The surge succeeded, led to the “Anbar Awakening,” and totally decimated al-Qaeda in Iraq. This led to Maliki sending in Iraqi troops to clear Basra and Sadr City of Sadr thugs who had controlled the city for some time. Proving that Iraqi troops CAN get the job done. Which led to:

Once violence was under control, the Iraqis began to make serious political progress, as McCain had predicted. They passed almost all of the “benchmark” legislation that Obama’s bill would have required.

And the kicker? What would have happened if Obama had gotten his way:

There is no way to know for sure, but it seems likely that, facing less resistance, Al Qaeda in Iraq would have continued to gain strength, the fragile Iraqi Security Forces would have collapsed, as would the fragile Iraqi government, militias would have flourished–and the United States would have departed under fire, accepting a humiliating defeat in the war against al Qaeda that would have reverberated globally.

~~~

…When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Now the question is, reading that last sentence above, would the Obama supporters had cared about the end result? Or would they have thought it our just reward for voting in Bushitler?

There is much I don’t like about McCain, the latest global warming crapola is a good case in point, but unfortunately in this election we are forced to vote against a candidate rather then for one. He is far too left on many issues but on the two most important ones, the War on Terror and nominating judges to the Supreme Court, he is heads and tails above Obama. Obama would have had us run out of Iraq with our tails between our legs and you can bank on the fact that he would nominate the most liberal judges to the Supreme Court.

We know McCain will handle the War on Terror better, as the editors at The Weekly Standard have so ably documented, and we can only guess about how he would handle Supreme Court nominations. He says he would nominate originalist judges. We can’t be sure he would but we KNOW Obama won’t.

So thats our choice. A somewhat liberal Republican or a Marxist who would see our national security decimated.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
10 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This bears repeating:

There is no way to know for sure, but it seems likely that, facing less resistance, Al Qaeda in Iraq would have continued to gain strength, the fragile Iraqi Security Forces would have collapsed, as would the fragile Iraqi government, militias would have flourished–and the United States would have departed under fire, accepting a humiliating defeat in the war against al Qaeda that would have reverberated globally.

~~~
…When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

And you asked: “Now the question is, reading that last sentence above, would the Obama supporters had cared about the end result? “

Of course they wouldn’t care. Anyone who did care about the end result with it’s bloodbath for innocent Iraqis, defeat for the United States and an enormously more powerful Al Queda would never be so irresponsible to support the policy that Obama backed in the first place.

For all the boo hooing about what went wrong in Iraq remember one thing: It could have been MUCH, MUCH WORSE. Obama and company pretend (fantasize) that their policy alternatives would have NO negative consquences.

Only a fool would trust them with the White House.

There is a total disconnect that feeds those against – or complacent to – Iraq’s successful transition to Arab democracy. They fail to recognize, or believe, that anything happening in Iraq has a direct effect on their own back yards. They are just not capable of connecting those dots. And it is a direct reflection of the disturbing increase in narcissism in the US. We’re good in a crisis. But it always take a crisis to bring out that good.

Unfortunately concern with what happens to an Iraq Republic will always be a nigh on impossible sell. The US only turned a more defensive eye, willing to enter the Middle East with this aggression, in the aftermath of 911. The further removed from that day, sans more attacks on US soil, the more disconnected the dots will become to the average citizen. Understanding the global strategic overview of events and their outcomes is not in their educational make up.

But he’s the Messiah, McCain should just withdraw and let him save us.

McCain sucks, but O’Bama sucks worse.

McCain is the bestof the 2 evils left. He drinks the Manbearpig Cool aid, wants to close Gitmo and is soft on Illegal Immigration. But Obama would be devestating to our economy and our Foreign Policy. He would be Dhimmi Carter II.

Re: “But he’s the Messiah, McCain should just withdraw and let him save us.”

I seem to recall during the 2004 election campaign… Those pictures of George W. Bush, with lights positioned to present a “halo” about his head. The (later proven false) story about President Bush taking time off from a hospital visit to “minister to and save” a child who was a patient.

Conservatives loved those stories, believed them 100% and passed them everywhere.

Now, Barak Obama has generated excitement among his followers. And Conservatives cannot manage to sneer enough at this, with Messiah comments.

Remember, it was YOUR thought leader, Pat Robertson, who made the statements that “God selected George W. Bush to be president”. And every single Conservative loved it when he did.

Never saw the stories you refer to. Do not listen to Pat Robertson. Do not go to church. And am God Damned sick and tired of your idiotic “every single Conservative”, “100% free pass that Conservatives are required to give to George W. (B)ush”, “setting a record for fillibusters with their 100% loyalty to George W. Bush” (but democrat fillibusters are great things) lies.

All you do is religiously copy/paste your ignorance and garbage from YOUR “thought leader(s)”. All I did above was take the first part of your repeated comments and pasted them.

So let me get this straight, calling Obama the “Messiah” is bad (since evil “conservatives” say it), but you calling republican (though NOT conservative leaders) “Saint” is ok? Oh, I forgot, you are a beknighted elite leftist and we are just commoners.

You are a truly deluded yet devoted person to keep buying this crap and then religiously posting it.

Can someone please link me to a GWB halo pic?

Also, since this thread’s about commander in chief stuff, what CIC policy has Pat Robertson commanded Sen McCain to follow?

Steve you need to get rid of the “all conservatives” bit. It is old and also false. I think that every conservative that posts or comments on this blog are totally different. We are all difffernt and we are not group thinkers like the Indetity Politics that is in the Democrat Party. I think Robertson is an idiot and have never listened to what he says. I do not like McCain either, but anybody is better than the Obamassiah. He really scares me with what he could do to this country. Just think 20% inflation, Misery Index and Mailaise in the economy. Yes Dhimmi Carter II.

I seem to recall during the 2004 election campaign… Those pictures of George W. Bush, with lights positioned to present a “halo” about his head.

You’re going to have a hard time proving that one.

You might find something that has been Photoshopped but nothing untouched.

The (later proven false) story about President Bush taking time off from a hospital visit to “minister to and save” a child who was a patient.

Link?

Source?