"President Obama, you are cleared for takeoff."
"Roger, uh, which button do I push first"?
Barack Obama has raised a few eyebrows lately with his recent comments on the situation in Iraq. As he announces his upcoming trip to that country, he is creating more confusion about what he really intends to do if he becomes president.
The confusion started when Obama explained to reporters that during his time in Iraq, he would consult with military leaders on the ground, and, based on that, would "refine" his policy. Two hours later, he was speaking a different tune to reporters, insisting that his determination to end the war and give his military a new strategy (withdrawal) was unchanged.
When one reporter pointed out discrepancies between what he was saying then vs what he had said mere hours before, Obama hemmed and hawed and blamed the McCain campaign for creating the confusion.
Well, excuse me, Senator Obama, but no one from the McCain campaign took any part in your two explanations to the press within hours of each other. What created the confusion was likely-your own confusion.
The question must be asked (if the mainstream news media is willing to follow up) is whether Obama is starting to re-think his Iraq policy based on the surge and recent success in that war-a success that the MSM doesn't want to talk much about. Can Obama, who claims he was against the war from the start (as an Illinois state senator)acknowledge that maybe-just maybe- we are winning in Iraq and that maybe-just maybe- we should see it through? Or is he committed to getting out and damn the consequences in order to please his constituency?
I have a feeling that Obama right now doesn't even know what he should do, something that I suspect would be a recurring theme in an Obama presidency.
10 comments:
I won't disagree that Obama has put his foot in his mouth on this issue, but I REALLY have a hard time with phrases like how we're "winning" in Iraq. Winning what, exactly? We've been "winning" for some time now, but the meaning of the word is so vague that there's no way to tell when "winning" becomes "won".
It's so easy to make statements about how we should "see it through" or "finish the job", but it's another thing to define what those things actually mean. From what I can tell, it can mean anything and nothing at the same time.
I mean, there's all this outrage over Obama saying this or that, but where's the outrage about the current administration? Cheney was ON RECORD during the first Iraq War about how we shouldn't topple the government there because it would create the very instability that we're now experiencing. And yet, they act like they were surprised that it happened! Damn, but I called that! I'm not even an expert, and I knew that this could have been the result! Maybe I deserve a cabinet position, because apparently I'm smarter than the morons who are currently in charge.
Meanwhile, buried in the back pages of the newspaper, our soldiers are still getting killed in Afghanistan, and we STILL haven't caught Osama bin Laden, and it seems like nobody even cares. I want to see these politicians talk about THAT for a change.
I respect everything you say, Lance, but can you really say that the mainstream news media is giving any play to the fact that the Surge is bringing results. Of course, we are probably listening to different sources for our news, but if we really are winning in Iraq, why not finish the job rather than give up and leave it to the Jihadists and Iran?
I guess what I am saying is that I want us to win in Iraq-and Afghanistan.
I respect everything you say, Lance, but can you really say that the mainstream news media is giving any play to the fact that the Surge is bringing results. Of course, we are probably listening to different sources for our news, but if we really are winning in Iraq, why not finish the job rather than give up and leave it to the Jihadists and Iran?
I guess what I am saying is that I want us to win in Iraq-and Afghanistan.
Actually, I am aware of the successes that the surge has been bringing - all of it from the "liberal" media. I also know that there is still a lot of violence going on there. It strikes me as overly simplistic to say that it now means that we're "winning". To use Bill O'Reilly's favorite term, it's nothing more than spin.
Still, I wish the media would have asked some tough questions before we even got into this war - which they didn't.
But again, what does "win" mean? I mean, it's not like WWII where once the Axis unconditionally surrendered, we knew we had won.
Perhaps we need to clearly define what victory is - and then determine whether it's possible and how great of a price we're willing to pay for it. I mean, we've lost over 4,000 soldiers so far. At what point is it too much? 10,000? 100,000? Nobody seems to want to ask that question though.
We who comment agree with you...
What concerns me more and more each day is all those millions of innocent Americans who never bother to read this stuff or my stuff or any of the stuff that really defines the man for what he is. A traitor ! And the innocent shall suffer, but by then it will be too late for them to comment.
May the world be full of commentators so at least we look like we know something.
Lance,
Bush told us at the start that this would not be a short war (war on terror-not Iraq). Whether it's Iraq, Iran or anywhere else, it will last for decades. It's not nations we are fighting against, it is an ideology that spreads across borders. We might as well get used to it because its here for the long haul-even if Obama becomes president. He can pull us out of Iraq-and let that place become a terrorist state, but our enemies will still come after us.
I'm glad that you clarified that he was referring to the war on terror and not the war in Iraq - I was about to go ballistic and copy and paste a bunch of quotes from him and his cronies.
The thing is, a lot of people, myself included, believe that we definitely need our military to destroy those who would do us harm. I was for going into Afghanistan, but going into Iraq seemed to be a collosal misstep, and our troops could have been put to better use elsewhere. So far, it seems that I'm right and that going in there has only served to make it a haven for Al Quaeda.
I hope that I'm wrong about the notion that we're currently "winning", but considering that nobody seems to be defining what that means, I'm afraid that I might not be.
If we leave Iraq, it will be a haven for AQ. Right now, it seems to be a place where we have attracted AQ to come and be killed.
(Do you think maybe that was the strategy all along?)
Heh. That's an interesting way of looking at it. Honestly though, I don't give them enough credit for that. If it turns out that is the ultimate result, then it's more like we succeeded the same way Forrest Gump did - by sheer, dumb luck.
Perhaps, but there sure are a lot of signs of success in Iraq, which not all of the press and certainly not the Democrats want to talk about.
Post a Comment