May 31 2008
Obama Must Face His Mistakes On Iraq
Obama talks a big talk about how others must admit their mistakes. This transparent campaign slogan is coming back to haunt him big time as the he is forced to face his own mistakes on the war in Iraq:
The widespread conviction among Democrats that we are destined to fail in Iraq was the key to Barack Obama’s emergence as Presidential front-runner. He postured himself as the candidate who had opposed the war from the beginning. But what helped Obama in the Democratic primaries may prove his undoing in the general election. Through the months when Obama’s dedication to failure was bringing him closer to the nomination, conditions in Iraq were improving, not worsening. This contradiction is now becoming acute, and Obama faces it squarely as he tries to decide whether, how and when to go to Iraq.
Obama once claimed to hold views on Iraq which were not much different than those of George Bush:
“Obama, the U.S. Senate candidate from Illinois, said he believes the Bush administration has lost too much credibility in the world community to administer the policies necessary to stabilize Iraq.
On Iraq, on paper, there’s not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago,’ Obama said during a luncheon meeting with editors and reporters of Tribune newspapers. “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.’
The execution of the war has been stupendous since General Petraeus leveraged the growing Sunni split with the barbaric al-Qaeda (The Awakening) and poured resources into the streets to help turn the tide against al-Qaeda (The Surge). Yesterday I too noted that Obama had an unavoidable date with destiny, one where he either supported America’s interests or the interests of a lost minority of voters who pray for defeat in Iraq to teach Bush a lesson. How Obama handles Iraq is important because he will lose support whichever path he takes.
One choice loses the far left but makes in-roads with the centrists, who want to leave Iraq victorious. The other choice leads to losing the general election in order to appease the defeatists on the far left. Trying to split the difference will lose everybody. Whatever choice he makes Obama has a date with destiny because this is how the Iraq war issue will play out in the 2008 elections.
So you are saying that Obama is between Iraq and a hard place…?
“Obama, the U.S. Senate candidate from Illinois, said he believes the Bush administration has lost too much credibility in the world community to administer the policies necessary to stabilize Iraq.”
I would like to ask, just who are those in the world community who’s credibility we have lost? Syria, Iran, Hamas, Hezballah, UBL?
His line is easy to throw out, as words are important, so he says, tell us Mr. Obama, who?
Obama is not running for legislator in chief, he is running for Commander in Chief. His roll would be to protect this Nation, he had better do some serious thinking about what he is running for.
An aside, Obama may not have said the words of Rev. Wright, but he is clearly a participant and believer in the “Black Liberation Theology”, as he sat in the church for 20 years soaking up the philosophy exposed in that church. I can understand how many blacks can cheer the church leaders, however not one of them should be elected to the position as President of the United States.
Obama’s position on National Defense reflects his distain for the greatness of this country, the bravery and winning spirit of it’s people, and the rightness of our basic values as Americans.
JWB,
You owe me a new computer screen, I spewed all over this one.
In off topic breaking news
Obama quits Trinity Church
DEMs seat Mi and Fl with 1/2 the delegate count but full seating.
Warning AJ put all liquids down!
OK
When they make a documentary of Obama’s campaign will they title it
Broke Barack Mountain?
I suppose, according to this naif that we should now stand aside after all the blood and money spent in winning this war against gigantic obstacles and let the UN take over. Why not? They have done such a super job on all their other endeavors like the Oil for Food program, their peacekeeping missions, their disaster relief program. It was also admirable how they went into Rawanda, Darfur, etc to relieve the suffering there. God hellp us if he becomes president. We will probably become a second or their rate nation within the first two years. There would be many campfires and campers singing kumbala. And didnot this ass say if the national anthem was “I’d like to teach the world to sing” he would salute it? Gah!!!!!!!!!
I’m not sure I see a way for Obama to reverse course on his Iraq policy verbally. I suspect he will do what he has been doing all along. He will argue that he will end the war, bring the troops home in a thoughtful manner, etc……but, end up continuing the current strategy. He will simply call it his own at the end of the day.
If something explodes in Iraq and it reaches another violent level, however…….I think he will still surrender.
He is not led by conviction or the strategic necessity to secure a victory in Iraq for a more peaceful future. He is led by his thumb –and, the wind.
If he would turn his back on his own church and religious beliefs so easily…..as he did today…..
can there be much else he could turn his back on?
I think Obama’s foreign policy would be weak to begin with (look at his advisors), and would evolve and change back and forth from day to day…..riding the ‘erratic wind’ of political emotion.
He is not a leader…
he is a follower of the events that preceed him.
He will not shape the future…..the future will shape him.
Austin Bay has written a must read companion article to AJ’s post:
——————————–
5/29/2008
Unraveling Al Qaeda
This is a very important article — a mainstream and liberal journal has noticed Al Qaeda’s information warfare loss and examined the roots of this defeat. The information loss is becoming a physical loss as well. The roots go deep — as StrategyPage noted way back on October 27, 2005 (see the previous link).
The article has its nod to a template — “Iraq bred terrorists.†Iraq trapped terrorists, in particular Al Qaeda — see this from January 2003. Would a WMD “terror spectacular†now reverse Al Qaeda’s decline (as the column suggests)? If I were taking a bet I think a major chemical attack or a nuclear/radiological attack would seal its fate, but let’s hope that kind of “terrorist Tet†doesn’t occur. (As for my long term views on Iraq, after August 2, 1990 the fighting never stopped, and that’s from January 2003 as well.)
I don’t care if Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and etceteras didn’t forsee the terrorist trap or didn’t want to mention it. Fighting and defeating Al Qaeda in the front yard of the Arab Muslim Middle East was essential; creating an alternative to terrorists and tyrants was essential; thwarting future Al Qaeda mega-attacks (particularly with weapons of mass destruction) was essential.
Fighting and defeat Al Qaeda in the Arab Muslim front yard — looks like TNR now sees the utility of that. Al Qaeda could not export their intra-Muslim war. They brought destruction to home turf, much of that destruciton wrought by their own socio-aths.
The alternative to terrorists and tyrants — call it democracy in Iraq.
http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=1892
———————————–
The article referenced in TNR “The Unravealing” by Peter Bergen is lengthy — but, a most interesting in depth description, from an insider (terrorists) point of view of how America’s war on terror broke the back of al Qaeda:
excerpt:
Most of these clerics and former militants, of course, have not suddenly switched to particularly progressive forms of Islam or fallen in love with the United States (all those we talked to saw the Iraqi insurgency as a defensive jihad), but their anti-Al Qaeda positions are making Americans safer. If this is a war of ideas, it is their ideas, not the West’s, that matter. The U.S. government neither has the credibility nor the Islamic knowledge to effectively debate Al Qaeda’s leaders, but the clerics and militants who have turned against them do. Juan Zarate, a former federal prosecutor and a key counterterrorism adviser to President Bush, acknowledged as much in a speech in April when he said, “These challenges from within Muslim communities and even extremist circles will be insurmountable at the end of the day for Al Qaeda.”
I think they are going to go back to arguing whether or not we should have gotten involved in the war at all. Just stick with the Bush lied narrative. It is 2003 forever for these people. I heard someone say it is like some bizarre loop, groundhog day sort of thing. They are convinced that they can replay that over and over and people will not notice the improvements in Iraq.
Iraq: the unecessary war that defeated al Qaeda (coming to movie theatres near you). LOL
You are probably right, Terrye. Already signs that this is their gameplan. McCain can defeat that gameplan if he makes this the year to ‘educate Americans” on GWOT. Americans would be amazed if they understood what just happened in Iraq in the larger geo-political aspects of this war.
And, in hopes to keep AJ spewing:
Webster’s dictionary:
Trinity Church: the bump Obama just drove his bus over
Back to Obama…..I’m not sure it will be voer until he denounces the church.
What the heck does this mean??????:
“I will not denounce the church. It is not a church worthy of denouncing.” -Obama-
I can hear Obama now:
“I will not denounce Ahmadinijad and his desire for the destruction of Israel, he is not worthy of denouncing.”
They tried to revive some of that “Bush lied” with all teh coverage over his press guy’s book.
Too bad teh book didn’t have any specifics of any wrongdoing AT ALL.
The Press is always so desperate to get Bush.. it’s like the National Guard papers all over again.
It only shows the people how the press can not be trusted.
To All,
Like the Bush Press Flak and Obama and Norm, I have come to the view that we are losing in Iraq!!!
That, in fact, we must lose.
Unbeatable Foes
The Geneva Convention Applies
Insurgent Recruit Depot, Iraq
Evidence of high moral, the glamour of Men in Uniform, and the power of intensive training turned me.
I now join hands with Norm and Obama.
This is just too convincing.
We are doomed.
Quit….
Run.
Vince is right, it is like the national guard thing all over. In fact, did you notice how the press was on the story immediately..as if they had a heads up, just like the TANG thing.
Scotty is just a weasel. He does not know jack.
He was getting his ass kicked on the morning C-SPAN call-in show.
He was truly pathetic.
i think it is cute that you all have so much invested in a “victory” that you are spewing all over your monitors this morning. i think cheney does that everytime he watches his videos of the cia torturing prisoners or listens to illegal wiretaps. but an objective analysis would show that the facts have not changed much. sure a 20% troop escalation has brought some security…but even patreaus is afraid to get back to pre-escalation troop levels. and still the STRATEGIC goals of that TACTIC have not been met. that’s really not much to show for the blood and treasure spent to get here. but it wasn’t your blood or treasue so spew-on. the rest of us will still worry about the problems this f’ed up policy has created. al queda which is still a serious threat. a strengthened iran, hamas and hezzbollah. isreal in greater danger. but really…y’all keep spewing on your monitors. yuk.
norm reminds me of C3PO from Star Wars… annoying child-like whining throwing up his arms, saying how we’re all going to die. These leftists are such pussies.. they dont want to fight for anything… they’re so wrapped up in their world of comfort nothnig is worth risking it.
Too bad norm. You might have no honor or sense of responsbility but America does have responsiblity and we’re going to make sure that the enemy within (folks like you) are prevented from causing our defeat and humiliation.
right vince…i notice you only make personal attacks and do not address one substantive issue i raised. so i’ll get down to your level. i’d surely love for you to call me a pussy to my face. e-mail me and i’ll give you my address and you can drive up here and let’s see just who is a pussy.
it’s not about not wanting to fight for anything. it’s about not wanting to fight for nothing. the enemy was not iraq. iraq had nothing to do with 9.11. iraq posed no real threat to us. our policy towards iraq has done more harm than good…it has strengthened our real enemies. even the most optimistic spin-meisters still say that al-queda is a serious threat. words like responsibility are great but it’s actions that matter. and our actions have helped the enemy.
I’ve addressed your “substantive issue” about a billion times already. Do you think you defeatists have been saying anythign new lately? It’s the same backbiting complaining defeatism for years now.
I’ve never see a more brain-dead group of people in my life… arguing the same nonsense everyday.. acting as if you never discussed before a billion times.
Demented people like you are encouraging my enemy. And you don’t care.
blah blah defeatist blah blah brain-dead blah blah demented blah blah. thanks for proving my point.