Joe Lieberman took on the Obama victory lap over Iraq this morning which basically comes down to what we here at FA have been saying. If we had followed the plan Obama put forth on Iraq a year and half ago there is no way we would have been able to declare victory now:
Or as Christopher Hitchens put it:
If it is true, as yesterday’s three-decker front-page headline in the New York Times had it, that “U.S. Considering Stepping Up Pace of Iraq Pullout/ Fall in Violence Cited/ More Troops Could Be Freed for Operations in Afghanistan,” then this can only be because al-Qaida in Iraq has been subjected to a battlefield defeat at our hands—a military defeat accompanied by a political humiliation in which its fanatics have been angrily repudiated by the very people they falsely claimed to be fighting for. If we had left Iraq according to the timetable of the anti-war movement, the situation would be the precise reverse: The Iraqi people would now be excruciatingly tyrannized by the gloating sadists of al-Qaida, who could further boast of having inflicted a battlefield defeat on the United States. I dare say the word of that would have spread to Afghanistan fast enough and, indeed, to other places where the enemy operates. Bear this in mind next time you hear any easy talk about “the hunt for the real enemy” or any loose babble that suggests that we can only confront our foes in one place at a time.
The libs look foolish declaring some kind of victory here, but thats par for the course I suppose.
See author page
Republicans will be spending a great deal of time in hypothetical worlds from now on. It’s the only place where McCain still has a shot.
If it wasn’t for Lieberman that little nuance would have gone unnoticed. He seems to be the only one on Team McCain that isn’t tone deaf. He was able, in a single media-friendly sound bite, to invalidate the entire Obama World Tour. Now all the footage he will be filming in the region in order to prop up the veneer presidentiality will be for nought.
You mean that hypothetical world where the lib/progressives live 24/7, Fit? Their hypotheticals such as:
… our liberation of Iraq from Saddam increased jihad recruitment when, in fact, jihad has fallen massively out of favor with Muslims and clerics as a result of their brutal warfare in Iraq against fellow Muslims (starting in 2006).
… our presence in Iraq, sans withdrawal that suited the Iraqis progress (which up until only until a few weeks ago was premature even by Iraq govt standards), was the problem for Iraqi political reconciliation? How did that progress in “rapprochement” (Maliki’s words) happen while we were still there then?
… that the Surge was a mistake and have no effect?
… that the world and Iraq would be better off if Saddam were still in power?
… that the US is “no safer”, despite the fact that the enemy has been weakened sufficiently as to be unable to hit the US soil since 911?
… that the DNC Congress tries to convince us that the AUMF was never an okay to use military force, despite the name of the resolution they signed was titled the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq??
As for McCain’s “only shot”, time will prove whether or not that statement has a lick of truth. You’re picking up on Doug’s gig, ya know… the political palm reader of FA.
Until Nov, I am unwilling to predict the path the US voter will take. Frankly, I haven’t got a clue. The nation is trending dangerously left for socialist/welfare policies. Decades of dumbing down in public education, a lazy ‘tude to actually work for what you have, a sense of entitlement and a lack of pride in personal achievement. If enough Americans are into the govt “gimme” mode, BHO may win.
If more Americans can look at the DNC’s absolute refusal to explore for oil and hefty price tag for their alternative energy plan, JSM’s likely to win. If the DNC continues to spread the myth that oil prices are the result of speculators – all while demanding we dip into the Strategic Oil Reserve (huh??? isn’t that increasing supply???) – and see it for the BS doubletalk it is, Mac’s again likely to win.
Frankly, I think Iraq’s going to be a back burner issue (as long as nothing drastic happens), and that oil, energy, and the taxes BHO intends to impose with his energy policies will take center stage. Afghanistan under Obama is a guaranteed US escalation. Under Mac, dunno. A week or so ago, he was for holding the NATO members’ feet to the fire to put in their quota of troops to relieve the US of that sole responsibility. Now he too is advocating a “surge”.
Will Americans be happy to withdraw from Iraq, and support either JSM’s or BHO’s escalation elsewhere? Either way, it looks like that issue will come out a wash, as they are both for escalation. ADDED: Oddly enough, even the very progressive rag, The Nation, notices the same thing…
This bring us to the domestic policy differences…. and frankly not large enough differences to suit my personal tastes.
JSM’s energy stance includes drilling (except for in ANWR… duh) and includes cheap and efficient nuke power. BHO’s nuke power stance is likely not to include it for his preconditions INRE waste disposal. So he depends on financing alternative technology only, and ignoring our oil needs in the interim.
Under Obama, the gas prices won’t go down. The average American will be faced with forced conservation for lack of money to pay for pleasurable transportation, and face increasing difficulty meeting the monthly bills. BHO’s unbelievably expensive energy plan, increased taxes, a cash-forced reduction in lifestyle, and the effect on business by over taxed, cash-starved Americans’ staying home, will put the American household over the top, and the economy deep in the toilet.
If that’s the issue on Americans’ minds, the hypothetical world is the “only shot” BHO has.
I can’t add to what MataH said in such precise and thorough detail.
So forgive me if I just repeat the paragraph Curt cites from Christopher Hitchens:
We have BEATEN AL QUEDA IN IRAQ and the Dems who did nothing but try and obstruct that victory are now trying to minimize it.
As much as the American people didn’t like the Iraq war, they would have liked LOSING it even less. And we have to count on the fact that they can see through the smokescreens Democrats are now sending up to minimize the VICTORY.
I think McCain/Lieberman, et. al. need to ratchet this campaign up another notch or two and just say it: OBAMA WOULD HAVE LOST IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN WOULD BE A BIGGER MESS BECAUSE OF IT.
It is amazing how misinformed are the people in Spain, my country, and I guess in many other European countries. I came on vacation and was discussing about Iraq with different people.
They didn’t even know Petraeus. Many people here think that the situation in Iraq is catastrophic, at this very moment. They have never heard about the surge or the decrease of violence and the increase in security.
Many people think it is a disaster and there is no solution for that and Bush was wrong. The Spanish left is particularly anti-American, and particularly irrational (the President Zapatero was the stupid guy that remained seated when the American flag passed by in a military parade, the same idiot that cowardly retired our troops from Iraq). Fortunately, to save the Spanish position, Aznar supported Bush.
Anyway, the MSM are basically leftish here in Spain, mostly the TV’s. You will NEVER hear any good news about Iraq. Never. Only the negative things appear on TV. Only the terrorists attacks, the number of casualties after a terrorist attack. Whenever that happens, you will see images and comments about it. But there is no good news about Iraq.
As a result, the people think AT THIS TIME that there are terrorists attacks every day in Iraq, and every day forty or fifty people die in Iraq in terrorists attacks. People think that America is losing in Iraq, because that is what the MSM are telling, and because that is what the irrational leftish are willing to hear.
Zapatero retired the troops from Iraq, betraying his allies, just for internal electoral reasons. Now, Zapatero and the Spanish Left are supporting… who would you think? Obama, of course.
Alas, here in the U.S. as well, scriptamanent.
And to some extent, true here, as well. Which is why I still see “man on the street” interviews where a passerby talks as if he were basing his opinion on 2005-2006 media negativity, and still thinks there’s a civil war brewing and U.S. soldiers are dropping like flies.
If MSM, as scriptamanent describes it, were the only news information I received coming out of Iraq….is it any wonder when you have polls that talk of a “majority” who want us out of Iraq immediately, or think it was a mistake?
And many who don’t follow the news closely, are susceptible to an overall, vague impression, based upon the media narrative and constant droning refrain, “Iraq war is a quagmire”, “Bush lied”, etc., because it’s been so hammered into our national psyche.
Our brainwashing MSM? They’re following him around on his world tour, that right there is enough evidence to prove how biased it is here.
This article caught my attention. I think it’s a study worth reading:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us/politics/15cnd-poll.html?hp
Now, as I’m reading this, I’m wondering just how many of these people are casting their votes toward a candidate because of the real issues such as the one MataH. touches up on, like the economy, Iraq, and domestic policies, rather than just race or any other petty reason. Few examples:
“The poll found that Mr. McCain is yoked to the legacy of President Bush — majorities believe that Mr. McCain, as president, would continue Mr. Bush’s policies in Iraq and on the economy. Mr. Bush’s approval rating on the economy is as low as it has been in his presidency, 20 percent; and even while there has been an increase in the number of Americans who think the war is going well, there has been no change in the significantly large number of people who think it was a mistake have invaded.”
You tell me how many of those people research the truth and don’t believe what’s fed to them by the MSM. I wonder how large a percentage that number of people is.
Also, I found this little piece particularly humorous (not because of race, but because of what was reported, for those who would be eager to peg me as a wingnut racist):
“Black voters were far more likely than whites to say that Mr. Obama cares about the needs and problems of people like them, and more likely to describe him as patriotic. Whites were more likely than blacks to say that Mr. Obama says what he thinks people want to hear, rather than what he truly believes.”
BINGO!
I think McCain’s (who I don’t like one little bit) stock will increase “if’ the Lame Stream Media printed the truth on gas prices. Not only have the democrats refused to help lower prices they are actually ‘planning a 10cent per gallon increase in taxes’. Way to help the working man. No matter how much they study wind, solar, and nuclear energy the fact remains, Americans own millions of vehicles which require gas/diesel to operate and there will be no subsitute for that for years. Do they plan to give every American a new efficient non poluting vehicle or take us back to horse and buggy. I can see millions of people actually starving to death on the democrat energy plan. Think food is high now, wait until fuel prices make it impossible for the farmers to work the fields. You’ll be trying to ‘outbid’ someone for a loaf of bread.
I’m practicing for the future, for supper tonight we had food from the garden and nature (Venison, cantelope, tomatos, cucumbers, onions and cold slaw.). Not a thing from the store other than salt, pepper and a little mayo. Salt, a requirement for life is not a problem for us. There are dozens of abandoned salt mines in the area.
Reagan said that the Soviet Union could and should be defeated. The Democrat/Left said it couldn’t be done and ran interference.
Reagan said that lowering taxes would stimulate economic growth and increase government revenues. The Democrat /Left said it couldn’t be done and ran interference.
Reagan, Bush I and Bush II said the U.S. could and should build a missile defense system. The Democrat/Left said it couldn’t be done and ran interference.
Bush I said the U.S. could and should push Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The Democrat/Left said it couldn’t be done and ran interference.
Bush II said the U.S. could and should topple the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Democrat /Left said it couldn’t be done and tried to run interference (does anyone remember the “harsh Afghan winter”?).
Bush II said the U.S. should topple Saddam Hussein. The Democrat /Left voted for it but then said it couldn’t be done and ran interference.
Bush II said the U.S. should defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq. The Democrat/Left said it couldn’t be done and ran interference.
Bush II said that fighting and defeating Al Qaeda on their own ground would lead to a safer world, fewer terrorist attacks and a drop in support for Al Qaeda in the Islamic world. The Democrat /Left said it couldn’t be done and ran interference.
Bush II said lowering taxes would stimulate the economy and raise government revenues. The Democrat /Left said it couldn’t be done and ran interference.
So, explain…just how exactly is the Democrat /Left the party of “Change”.
All know if Obama had said this, the right wing bulldozers would have started up and a pile on would have commenced. But this is a good’n:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/07/mccain_appears.html
This is probably what happens when you have live on 5 hours of sleep a day. Me, personally, I wonder how he’s going to keep up after the convention when you sprint to the finish line.
(Someone had to say it; so there I did it!)
I dunno, Doug. I doubt JSM has a geographical problem, but more a slip of the tongue, as BHO did with the 57 states, or his US states border and Mitt influence. Then there was both Mitt and Chappaquiddick Ted calling Obama “Osama” by accident. These gaffes on either side don’t bother me.
Gaffes that do bother me are things such as BHO’s cowboy policy on Pakistan, his plans via his speech about Jerusalem, etc. These are far more serious.
That said, I’ll still take JSM on 5 hours of sleep than BHO on the same. Even wide-eyed and bushy-tailed, he’s still naive.
The real question is, why is this Obama’s first time overseas? It’s not because he cares. It’s because it’s election season. If people can’t see through this shallow attempt at legitimacy, then I feel for those people. They are dumber than a box of hair.
It’s not his first time dumbass…
I agree with Doug that Obama would get a lot more heat for a gaffe like that. Instead, it’s just one more clip to add to the gaffe montage.
Geez… you guys act like the press is pounding on Obama with negatives, when they help excuse his every failing.
Of coure BHO would get more press for a similar gaffe. He gets more press when he merely passes gas, fer heavens sake…. JSM is pretty much an “also ran” in the media’s eyes.
or blows his nose.