When discussing the war in Iraq, Barack Obama, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, never ceases to remind us that he had opposed the initial decision to liberate that nation. He seems to be appealing to that supermajority of Americans who now oppose the war.
Just yesterday Obama spokesman Bill Burton used the occasion of the release of Scott McClellan’s book to point out that his candidate had “challenged the president’s rationale for the war from the start.”
But, as Ralph Peters reminds us, “our next president will take office in 2009. It’s today’s reality that matters.” (Via Instapundit.)
But, instead of addressing that reality, the Illinois Senator dwells the past as if it’s enough to remind people he has always been opposed to the war. Should he win election to the White House, he’ll be in charge of managing its consequences in 2009, not in preventing its occurrence in 2003.
To understand what those consequences might be, it would be helpful for Senator Obama to familiarize himself with the facts on the ground today. No wonder the GOP has been counting the days since the likely Democratic nominee has been to Iraq.
The Democratic nominee criticizes the Administration’s policy there as if the situation on the ground has not changed since the surge began. As if the war remains unwinnable, violence is on the increase and political progress is stalled in Iraq. But, there have been improvements too numerous to count largely due to the adoption of tactics similar to those which Obama’s presumptive Republican rival this fall, John McCain, had long proposed as an antidote to a failed policy he had often criticized and repeatedly sought to correct.
No wonder McCain contends Obama is driven by ideology not facts on the ground. His Democratic rival has been offering the same policy toward Iraq as he has been pushing since before the surge began.
Shouldn’t we want as a president someone who considers the circumstances of a situation before rushing to judgment? Wouldn’t that be the reality-based approach?
Given the success of the surge, the coming defeat of Al Qaeda, the decline in violence, the effectuation of legislative reform, shouldn’t we be asking what would happen if we were to withdraw as quickly as Senator Obama proposes. Ralph Peters observes that, “not one ‘mainstream media’ journalist has pressed the leading advocates of unconditional surrender to describe in detail what might happen after we ‘bring the troops home now.’”
Maybe the media’s failure to ask has prevented the likely Democratic nominee from addressing that all-important question.
Obama’s whole campaign is based on his magic judgment in his, “Dumb War,†speech in 2002. But does that judgment make the grade?
DKK
And here’s the best one of the day, straight from the Democrat Party’s mouth:
Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space, a time for the political change to occur to accomplish the reconciliation. That didn’t happen. Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn’t accomplish its goal.
And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians.
So in short, our military achieved nothing, and everything good that has ever happened is due to the Iranians deciding to stop fighting.
Amusing, given that Pelosi previously denied the Iranians were involved in fighting in Iraq at all.
Disgusting, given that it demonstrates how Pelosi gives all the credit to the people attacking our troops and instigating destruction in Iraq, and absolutely none to our troops who have not only parried their blows, but valiantly pushed them back.
Pelosi is nucking futs.
She gives praise and credit to the nasty criminals, for temporarily forbearing. She gives none to the police whose presence and heroism are the only thing that made the nasty criminals forbear. Kind of like a trashy Mafia wife?
Pelosi isn’t nuts, she’s a traitorous ****. She is the author of the “undermine the war for political gain” strategy.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 05/30/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
It’s also worth remembering that Barack was not as adamant or persistent in his anti-war stance as his telling of the tale implies. Video, like facts, is a stubborn thing.