First of all, several of the minions of the dinosaur media appear to be watching and listening to Obama and not all of them are staying with the script. First of all there's Obama's Fake World Tour by UPI's Maggie Gallagher, unmaking the staged nature of Obama's visit. And in Mr. Obama in Iraq - the Washington Post points out his errors and inconsistencies, dubbing his foreign policy views 'eccentric.' :
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his
public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would
support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government
statement made clear that Mr. Maliki's timetable would extend at least seven
months beyond Mr. Obama's. More significant, it would be "a timetable which
Iraqis set" -- not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind.
It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage
that Gen. Petraeus seeks. {..}
Other Iraqi leaders were more directly critical. As Mr. Obama
acknowledged, Sunni leaders in Anbar province told him that American troops are
essential to maintaining the peace among Iraq's rival sects and said they were
worried about a rapid drawdown. {..}
Mr. Obama's response is that, as president, he would have to weigh Iraq's needs against those of Afghanistan and the U.S. economy. He says that because Iraq is "a distraction" from more important problems, U.S. resources devoted to it must be curtailed. Yet he also says his aim is to "succeed in leaving Iraq to a sovereign government that can take responsibility for its own future." What if Gen. Petraeus and Iraqi leaders are right that this goal is not consistent with a 16-month timetable? Will Iraq be written off because Mr. Obama does not consider it important enough -- or will the strategy be altered?
Arguably, Mr. Obama has given himself the flexibility to adopt either course. Yesterday he denied being "so rigid and stubborn that I ignore anything that happens during the course of the 16 months," though this would be more reassuring if Mr. Obama were not rigidly and stubbornly maintaining his opposition to the successful "surge" of the past 16 months.
Mr. Obama's account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is "the central front" for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable
In other words, the WAPO is essentially saying that Obama doesn't have a clue about what he's talking about!
Obama seems to forget that the surge, which he opposed, the bravery of our warriors and the military genius of Generals Petreaus and Ordiano none of whom he supported in any fashion are responsible for his being able to sit in a place like Anbar without getting his head blown off.
John McCain had the right of it, reminding voters that he had said that he would rather lose a political campaign than a war...while Obama obviously would rather lose a war to win a campaign. Even the clueless Katie Couric appears to be a little embarrassed as she contrasts Obama's views with McCain's:
Even more troubling was Obama's reshaping of history to try snd dance on the cracks of his own inconsistency. Rather than credit our troops or our military leaders with the success they achieved in spite of all the efforts of Obama and those like him, Obama credits "the Sunni awakening and the political reconciliation' for the improvement in Iraq's security.
Someone should tell Barack Obama that without American boots on the ground,none of this would have happened. Period.
Yet Obama continues to prove just how clueless he is. He told an incredulous reporter (ABC's Terry Moran) this week that even with the evidence in front of his nose, even given what he knows now, he was right to oppose the surge.
There's a word for this, but I wouldn't call it leadership.
There's some evidence that the American people are taking a second look at Obama, and perhaps not a flattering one.
A FOX news poll shows no bump for Obama from his overseas trip, polls from key battleground states show McCain Making significant gains on Obama and the latest NBC/WSJ poll shows most Americans consider Obama a 'riskier choice for president.'
No comments:
Post a Comment