Jul 26 2008
Iraq And Our Fallen Heros – Updated
Senator Obama has made it very easy on John McCain. First off, Obama has flip-flopped on so many issues has he has dumped his liberal base and moved to the center he has take the strategy of becoming an echo of McCain (and Bush) on a host of issues. Here are some prime examples:
(1) FISA: The Holy Grail topic of the liberal left, the years long effort by the SurrenderMedia to disable this nation’s protections on the fear of a second coming of Nixon. When the vote finally came to make semi-permanent the FISA fixes – and give telecom companies immunity – Obama threw out all his promises to fight the bill, throwing out the threat of a filibuster. But then he did more – he voted FOR the bill.
(2) Campaign Finance: Another darling of the left is the effort to take campaigns away from the people by limiting donations. Obama promised to use public financing – then threw that promise away once he started hauling in the money. Funny thing is, for all that money he has not gotten very much return.
(3) Hand gun control: If liberals could decimate conservatives their targets are religion and guns. Obama’s remarks about bitter Americans running to their bibles and guns still haunts the man. And yet, when the Supreme Court came out and overturned the DC handgun banÂ
More examples here. The only prime issue issue Obama has staked out a stand far left of McCain on is Iraq – and that is a gift to McCain. As John Hindraker noted yesterday, McCain clobbered Obama on his obstinate stance on The Surge and our victory in Iraq.Â
We both knew the politically safe choice was to support some form of retreat. All the polls said the “surge” was unpopular. Many pundits, experts and policymakers opposed it and advocated withdrawing our troops and accepting the consequences. I chose to support the new counterinsurgency strategy backed by additional troops — which I had advocated since 2003, after my first trip to Iraq. Many observers said my position would end my hopes of becoming president. I said I would rather lose a campaign than see America lose a war. My choice was not smart politics. It didn’t test well in focus groups. It ignored all the polls. It also didn’t matter. The country I love had one final chance to succeed in Iraq. The new strategy was it. So I supported it. Today, the effects of the new strategy are obvious. The surge has succeeded, and we are, at long last, finally winning this war.
Senator Obama made a different choice. He not only opposed the new strategy, but actually tried to prevent us from implementing it. He didn’t just advocate defeat, he tried to legislate it. When his efforts failed, he continued to predict the failure of our troops. As our soldiers and Marines prepared to move into Baghdad neighborhoods and Anbari villages, Senator Obama predicted that their efforts would make the sectarian violence in Iraq worse, not better.
And as our troops took the fight to the enemy, Senator Obama tried to cut off funding for them. He was one of only 14 senators to vote against the emergency funding in May 2007 that supported our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. …
Three weeks after Senator Obama voted to deny funding for our troops in the field, General Ray Odierno launched the first major combat operations of the surge. Senator Obama declared defeat one month later: “My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.” His assessment was popular at the time. But it couldn’t have been more wrong.
By November 2007, the success of the surge was becoming apparent. Attacks on Coalition forces had dropped almost 60 percent from pre-surge levels. American casualties had fallen by more than half. Iraqi civilian deaths had fallen by more than two-thirds. But Senator Obama ignored the new and encouraging reality. “Not only have we not seen improvements,” he said, “but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.”
If Senator Obama had prevailed, American forces would have had to retreat under fire. The Iraqi Army would have collapsed. Civilian casualties would have increased dramatically. Al Qaeda would have killed the Sunni sheikhs who had begun to cooperate with us, and the “Sunni Awakening” would have been strangled at birth. Al Qaeda fighters would have safe havens, from where they could train Iraqis and foreigners, and turn Iraq into a base for launching attacks on Americans elsewhere. Civil war, genocide and wider conflict would have been likely.
Above all, America would have been humiliated and weakened. Our military, strained by years of sacrifice, would have suffered a demoralizing defeat. Our enemies around the globe would have been emboldened. …
Senator Obama told the American people what he thought you wanted to hear. I told you the truth.
Combine this delusional stance with his rebuff to our injured soldiers in Germany and McCain has his signature issue to win in November. As long as Obama stands pat, McCain should hit him every day on what kind of fool it takes to prefer defeat at the hands of al-Qaeda (who WERE in Iraq and fighting us at the time) in a dangerous world. As McCain said from the link above:
Senator Obama said this week that even knowing what he knows today that he still would have opposed the surge. In retrospect, given the opportunity to choose between failure and success, he chooses failure. I cannot conceive of a Commander in Chief making that choice.
Neither can 90% of America. My bet is Obama is afraid to admit The Surge worked, and so he will continue to claim it was better we lost, and it would have been better that all those injured soldiers he turned his back on sacrificed in vain. Right now I cannot see how any amount of money can save Obama.
Update: The liberal media is starting to report on this – no less from The Tingle-Network (MSNBC):
n his official capacity as a sitting US senator, Obama has every right to stay in touch with America’s men and women in uniform. According to Pentagon officials, the problem was that Obama’s request to visit Landstuhl included two members of his campaign staff — retired Major General Jonathan S. Gration and Jeff Kiernan. US military officials in Germany informed the campaign the two political operatives would not be permitted on base.
Pentagon officials say Gration was the campaign’s point of contact at Landstuhl in arranging Obama’s visit and “got torqued” when he was told he would not be permitted to join Obama. It was Gration who later suggested to reporters that the Pentagon short-circuited Obama’s visit.
Are there some in the Pentagon or military resentful because Gration has climbed on board the Obama campaign? Did Gration overreact? As a former policy director for the US European Command, he would surely be disappointed — if not offended — by being excluded from the visit. It’s also been my experience that even retired generals do not want to hear the word “no.”
Look, a former general should damn well know better. He is not a general now, he is a political campaign operative and he KNOWS the difference. No general worth his salt would be confused and few would try to exploit the wounded for political or personal gain. The news media may start to uncover this unforgivable act of Obama’s campaign. Â
More here. What happened? Obama lost control of one of his “generals” who torpedoed the trip and Obama on the grounds he was not being fawned on enough. Obama IS weak and clearly cannot lead this nation. He can’t even control one egotistical general.
Update: Allah Pundit noticed how the McCain Campaign jumped on this Achille’s Heel for Obama – which will keep him in the good graces of the far left, liberal media AND slam a wedge between him and the majority of Americans:
Â
My view is that Obama can’t move off this limb he put himself on. My guess is the liberal elite leadership and moneybags for the Surrendercrats have mandated this is the issue he stays pat on. And given how he bowed to a couple of irate campaign aids when he turned his back on our injured troops, I get the feeling The Messiah has zero backbone and will stay on this limb as McCain and the GOP saw it off over the following months. Only a truly delusional person stands by a plan for defeat, even in the face of victory (more on that in the next post).
Â
Can anyone point me to the latest polls showing the percentage of the US soldiers favoring Obama versus McCain?
Thanks!
lurker:
I don’t know if there is such a thing, I did read a story about the press, I think it was NBC talking to 60 soldiers in Iraq, 54 said they would vote for MCain, but the only ones put on the air were the 6 going for the Democrat. If it were not for the press shilling for him Obama would not stand a chance.
Of course the Europeans love him. They like Al Gore and Jimmy Carter too. Anyone who puts the needs of the “world” {meaning Europe} ahead of the needs of the American people is going to be a hit with them.
Terrye wrote:
“Of course the Europeans love him. They like Al Gore and Jimmy Carter too. Anyone who puts the needs of the “world†{meaning Europe} ahead of the needs of the American people is going to be a hit with them.”
========
Sure, SOME Europeans love what he’s saying, but numbers at a rally are useless without percentages being used. The rest of the Europeans and everyone else on the planet know that 90% of the money in the world will remain in middle aged American males’ hands for quite a while yet, and that the status quo will remain, and all those who gain power in any form will be squashed or controlled if it’s at all possible.
Ray
The stunt from the retired general does not surprise me too much. In my experience, about one-third of retired senior officers don’t quite get that they are civilians, and will try to claim the perks of their former rank. Rather pathetic…and very annoying.
Terrye wrote:
“I don’t know if there is such a thing, I did read a story about the press, I think it was NBC talking to 60 soldiers in Iraq, 54 said they would vote for MCain,”
——-
After talking with serving military people in Iraq (on the net) during the last several years, I have the distinct impression that it’s not politically correct to support anyone but Republicans.
Ray
Ray:
I heard the numbers in Europe are about 60-80% Obama. I suppose that means western Europe. Democrats just seem more sempatico to them I think.
There are all kinds of people in the military, and a lot of them are Democrats. I have no doubt that some soldiers would like to support a Democrat, the party just makes it hard to do that. It was not always that way you know.
When you’re beholden, you’re beholden. Can’t make a move without the global socialists/democrats/far left’s permission if you are the o.
And they will NEVER stand for the truth to be told. It is too bright and bodes too well the the true hero in the White House today.
Terrye wrote:
“I heard the numbers in Europe are about 60-80% Obama. I suppose that means western Europe. Democrats just seem more sempatico to them I think.”
.
I’d imagine it has more to do with the party rather than any potential leader – even though the Democrats have looked quite useless for several years. At least Europeans (and also Australians) know that if the Democrats get in, there is much less chance of being abducted at a foreign airport and slammed in the can on imagined charges without habeas corpus rights. The Republicans did however have the good sense to say they wouldn’t abduct and Australians on our soil.
.
“There are all kinds of people in the military, and a lot of them are Democrats. I have no doubt that some soldiers would like to support a Democrat, the party just makes it hard to do that. It was not always that way you know.
.
Until a few years ago I had no idea which American political was which. They all seemed to have been following the same agenda on the international scene for the 20th century.
.
My awareness came about when the new President got in and immediately threatened China. That’s when I asked which party was which, because it seemed that the time had come to care about U.S. politics because it could seriously impact on world peace.
Ray
Get the word out. Send AJ’s post to EVERYONE on you email list. We have no right to complain if we don’t take actions to get this information out.
10 emails become 100 becomes 1000 becomes 1,000,000 and on and on. Just do it. 🙂
Has anyone got a Plan-B ready if Obama announces that his family is more important to him than banging his head against the wall and trying to re-educate the world and take America out of the Arms racket?
Ray
Ray:
Plan B? I don’t think anything is more important to Obama than winning.
Ray
You Wrote: My awareness came about when the new President got in and immediately threatened China. That’s when I asked which party was which, because it seemed that the time had come to care about U.S. politics because it could seriously impact on world peace.
For the record:
The US has criticised the Chinese authorities for continuing to hold the crew of a US surveillance plane which made an emergency landing after colliding with a Chinese fighter jet.
The US ambassador to Beijing, Joseph Prueher, told journalists in the Chinese capital that so far, US officials had not been allowed to see the plane or its 24 crew members.
He said there was no legal basis for this, and described it is “inexplicable and inexcusable”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1255343.stm
Was the President suppose to ignore this incident and allow the Chinese to hold members of our arm forces? Just exactly how did the President threaten the Chinese? Do you have links to what he supposedly said? Wasn’t it the Chinese who were being threatening by colliding with our jet than holding the American crew?
Also take note of how this incident was settled.
The crew of 24 was detained until April 11, shortly after the U.S. issued the “letter of the two sorries” to the Chinese.
The ‘Letter of the two sorries’ was the letter delivered by the United States Ambassador Joseph Prueher to Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan of the People’s Republic of China to defuse the Hainan Island incident in April 2001. The delivery of the letter led to the release of the U.S. crew from Chinese custody, as well as the return of the disassembled plane.
The letter stated that the United States was ‘very sorry’ for the death of Chinese pilot Wang Wei, and they also apologized for not obtaining permission to enter Chinese airspace to perform an emergency landing. Significantly, the United States did not apologize for conducting signals reconnaissance off the coast of China, nor did the United States explicitly accept responsibility for the collision, only expressing that they were sorry for the loss of Wang Wei and ‘sincere regret over (China’s) missing pilot and aircraft.’
It ended with “world peace” intact 11 days later.
Terrye wrote:
Ray:
Plan B? I don’t think anything is more important to Obama than winning.
.
His wife Michelle has already made it clear that she expects him to remain a significant part of the family’s life, and he has already said (in other words) that he hasn’t been doing that while he’s been on the road campaigning. She obviously rules the roost by having refused point-blank to even discuss things about their marriage that HE wants (or needs) to discuss, so they’re headed for trouble anyway.
.
It would be a different story if a party to a marriage didn’t want to discuss previous relationships – but there’s something awfully wrong when a man is not allowed to discuss his own relationship with his wife, especially when she knows Barack has had a disjointed/confused life due to his skin colour and that he’s trying to get more things into perspective, and SHE of (all people) has frustrated those attempts.
.
She ought to realise at her age that people talk about what they NEED to talk about at the time, no matter how trivial it may seem to them – whether it’s about football, tennis or their relationship.
.
I’m betting that she will mess it up for him before very long.
Ray
ordi wrote:
Ray
“You Wrote: My awareness came about when the new President got in and immediately threatened China. That’s when I asked which party was which, because it seemed that the time had come to care about U.S. politics because it could seriously impact on world peace.”
For the record:
The US has criticised the Chinese authorities for continuing to hold the crew of a US surveillance plane which made an Jemergency landing after colliding with a Chinese fighter jet.
[…..]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1255343.stm
[….] Just exactly how did the President threaten the Chinese? Do you have links to what he supposedly said? [….]
Links?
The link you provided had this to say:
“January 2001: George W Bush becomes
US President. Pledges tough line with
China on arms sales”
That was just the start.
Then there was the regular overhead spying, plus the ramming of a Chinese intercepting jet.
Ray
Senator Obama is an idiot. He probably thinks we need to destroy the country in order to “save” it. I have other words I could use, but this is a respectable joint.
Anyone remember this? I suspect McCain will be holding up a similar newspaper when he is elected.
crosspatch wrote:
Senator Obama is an idiot. He probably thinks we need to destroy the country in order to “save†it. I have other words I could use, but this is a respectable joint.
.
There’s not enough voters yet who want to “fix it” because of the national pride about being the “leader of the free world” is still more important than spending money on social services – like other free countries have been doing for decades.
.
When the cat gets out of the bag about what’s happening in other countries in relation to things like free speech, the right to a fair trial and social services for the unemployed and the sick, things will begin to turn around, but even the Democrats are not letting much of that information escape just yet.
.
A friend of mine from the former USSR reckons it’s hillarious. He says “at least we KNEW we were subject to propaganda”.
Ray
Redteam wrote:
I’d say this quote is correct primarily because it is the Republicans that support the military and the democrats that resent(hate) the military.
“After talking with serving military people in Iraq (on the net) during the last several years, I have the distinct impression that it’s not politically correct to support anyone but Republicans.â€
.
I’d be the same if I had the misfortune to be in the military, because even if I didn’t like Republican party starting fights around the planet, at least they know how to handle ’em once they’ve started – and that’s what counts once your in a combat zone. I mean who wants social workers and administrators running a war?
Ray
“Can anyone point me to the latest polls showing the percentage of the US soldiers favoring Obama versus McCain?”
Posted an article about that some time ago: ABC News Lies About Obama Support In Iraq
I wanted to let everybody know some good news … A Week with No US Troop Deaths In Iraq
“being the “leader of the free world†is still more important than spending money on social services – like other free countries have been doing for decades.”
And are quickly learning is a gigantic waste of money. Canada is now admitting that socialized medicine was a great mistake. The British hate their healthcare system, Japan’s system is nearly bankrupt.
It is not the role of government to “take care” of the people. It is the role of government to create an environment whereby people can take care of themselves or not as they choose.
Spending on “social services” is generally a waste of money and gets abused. It is basically corruption … bribing people with services for their votes.
Government is not a charity. Opening the government coffers to charitable causes always results in bankrupting the government because the politicians can not resist the temptation to offer more and more money in exchange for votes.
Our own social security act was really a sham designed to pay for the New Deal. We offered a “pension” that only kicked in at the age of average life expectancy. The average “pensioner” in 1938 drew social security for 24 months before they died. Social Security was designed to take in a lot of money, pay out a little, and lend the rest to Congress. They never anticipated a baby boom that was going to be on social security for 20 years after retirement. That charity is going to bankrupt America in about 10 years time.
Social Security would need to set a retirement age of 78 years old to be equal to what it was originally envisioned. Global life expectancy in the early 20th century, by the way, was only 10 years longer than it was during the Roman Empire.