RSS
Barack Pivots and Pivots Some More
Barack Obama tries to convince his base that he hasn't gone soft on an American defeat in Iraq.
Now that the surge has worked, a surge that defeatist Democrats and Obama denied would work, the Dem presidential candidate is attempting to pivot to a more reasonable centrist position. But the hard-left is going ape over it. So Obama pivots again.
He's the guy on the basketball court who has picked up his dribble and is trapped on the baseline. All his teammates are covered, so he has no one to pass to. He would like to call "Time out" but he can't remember if he's used them all up. So he spins around on one foot like a top. A five-second call is coming. In desperation he tries to wing the ball off an opponent's leg to send it out of bounds. He looks confused, desperate and frustrated.
Still, he must spin, even though he has lost possession of the issue. He whines to the referee for a foul call. The ref looks at him and shakes his head.
Now, he's in danger out losing possession of his fan base, and they of their marbles. They're booing and throwing beer and popcorn at him.
Meanwhile, Noemie Emery explains how it all happened.
How the anti-war left's brilliant plan to hang the war around the GOP's neck and cruise to political victory by U.S. military defeat in Iraq, was ruined by the toughness and smarts of Gen. David Petraeus, our warriors and our Iraqi allies.
What a tragedy. What a shame.
UPDATE: Iraq War Veteran Capt. Pete Hegseth has more on Op-Ed Obama.
UPDATE: Peter Wehner demolishes Obama's claims as they fly in the face of reality on the ground.
Wehner:
In his New York Times op-ed today on Iraq, Barack Obama makes several claims worth examining.
In his opening paragraph, Obama writes:
"The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States."
A phased redeployment of combat troops can now be done in the context of a victory in Iraq, whereas when Obama first called for the complete withdrawal of all combat troops in Iraq by March 2008, it would have led to an American defeat. It is because President Bush endorsed a counterinsurgency plan which Senator Obama fiercely opposed that we are in a position to both withdraw additional combat troops and prevail in Iraq.
Read it all...
Meanwhile, Time's Joe Klein tries to defend Obama:
"He's still clinging to his 16 month timetable for getting the troops home. That's probably too quick, but I understand why he's sticking with it: because he doesn't want the Republicans to call him a flip-flopper and also, I'd guess, because he figures that being overly optimistic about the withdrawal timetable isn't going to hurt him with the electorate."
The flip-flopper doesn't want to be called a flip-flopper so he lies instead? That's some defense.
Now that the surge has worked, a surge that defeatist Democrats and Obama denied would work, the Dem presidential candidate is attempting to pivot to a more reasonable centrist position. But the hard-left is going ape over it. So Obama pivots again.
He's the guy on the basketball court who has picked up his dribble and is trapped on the baseline. All his teammates are covered, so he has no one to pass to. He would like to call "Time out" but he can't remember if he's used them all up. So he spins around on one foot like a top. A five-second call is coming. In desperation he tries to wing the ball off an opponent's leg to send it out of bounds. He looks confused, desperate and frustrated.
Still, he must spin, even though he has lost possession of the issue. He whines to the referee for a foul call. The ref looks at him and shakes his head.
Now, he's in danger out losing possession of his fan base, and they of their marbles. They're booing and throwing beer and popcorn at him.
Meanwhile, Noemie Emery explains how it all happened.
How the anti-war left's brilliant plan to hang the war around the GOP's neck and cruise to political victory by U.S. military defeat in Iraq, was ruined by the toughness and smarts of Gen. David Petraeus, our warriors and our Iraqi allies.
What a tragedy. What a shame.
UPDATE: Iraq War Veteran Capt. Pete Hegseth has more on Op-Ed Obama.
UPDATE: Peter Wehner demolishes Obama's claims as they fly in the face of reality on the ground.
Wehner:
In his New York Times op-ed today on Iraq, Barack Obama makes several claims worth examining.
In his opening paragraph, Obama writes:
"The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States."
A phased redeployment of combat troops can now be done in the context of a victory in Iraq, whereas when Obama first called for the complete withdrawal of all combat troops in Iraq by March 2008, it would have led to an American defeat. It is because President Bush endorsed a counterinsurgency plan which Senator Obama fiercely opposed that we are in a position to both withdraw additional combat troops and prevail in Iraq.
Read it all...
Meanwhile, Time's Joe Klein tries to defend Obama:
"He's still clinging to his 16 month timetable for getting the troops home. That's probably too quick, but I understand why he's sticking with it: because he doesn't want the Republicans to call him a flip-flopper and also, I'd guess, because he figures that being overly optimistic about the withdrawal timetable isn't going to hurt him with the electorate."
The flip-flopper doesn't want to be called a flip-flopper so he lies instead? That's some defense.
posted by Spencerblog at
8:00 AM
5 Comments:
Spencerblog
Welcome to the wild world of politics. Did you expect anything less? From either side? McCain has a proven track record of saying what he thinks people want to hear, so he can get votes. He was even willing to put on a dog and pony show in a Baghdad market place to influence public opinion on Iraq.
"How the anti-war left's brilliant plan to hang the war around the GOP's neck and cruise to political victory by U.S. military defeat in Iraq, was ruined by the toughness and smarts of Gen. David Petraeus, our warriors and our Iraqi allies."
Gil, It hasn't been ruined. I was opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq from the start. It was one of the few times that I agreed with Pat Buchanan when he referred to it as an "imperialistic war". To me, that is the real issue here. Not the surge. Just because violence and American troop deaths are down in Iraq, that doesn't erase the damage that's already been done, and it doesn't guarantee a happy ending. Witness Malaki's call for a timetable for troop withdrawl and Iraq's close ties to the Iranian government.
After reading your claim "the anti-war left's brilliant plan to hang the war around the GOP's neck and cruise to political victory by U.S. military defeat in Iraq, was ruined", I decided to check the latest polls. So check them for yourself. Dont just take my word for it.
Go to pollingreport.com. You will see that opposition to the war is still growing, despite the surge, as more people realize that it was a mistake. According to CNN, PEW, Time, LA Times/ Bloomberg, U.S.A. Today, ABC, NBC, CBS, Quinnipiac, NYT, Wash. Post, AP,those opposed to the war are now in the majority, and steadily climbing.
This comment has been removed by the author.
How the anti-war left's brilliant plan to hang the war around the GOP's neck and cruise to political victory by U.S. military defeat in Iraq, was ruined by the toughness and smarts of Gen. David Petraeus
Poor LibDems. This is why they say Gen. Petraeus betrayed them. And they were against the surge because they feared it would work as it did.
Defeatists clinging to defeat for their own victory...
Gil
You write "A phased redeployment of combat troops can now be done in the context of a victory in Iraq" I'm still trying to figure out exactly what victory in Iraq is. We were told that we were going into Iraq because they had WMD's. There were no WMD's, so we couldn't accomplish the goal of removing them. We were told that we were going into Iraq because of a connection between Al-qaeda and Saddam. That connection never existed, so we couldn;t accomplish the goal of severing that tie. Victory in Iraq would have been discovering and removing WMD's or proving and severing Al-Qaeda tie's, would it not? Is victory the removal of a secular government, and replacing it with a theocratic government with ties to Iran? Can one really claim victory, when, as admitted by Bush himself, we based the war on faulty intel? Is it victory, or is it just hoping for the best outcome in spite of our mistakes?
I think it is racist for Gil to make a basketball analogy about our Affirmative Action Black Candidate.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home