New York Times Helps Obama Hide
July 22nd, 2008 at 09:35am Mark Noonan
This counts as “What Media Bias? Part 117″.
The New York Times rejects a McCain Op-Ed responding to Obama - the offending document, via Drudge:
In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance…
…Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
The Iraq issue will be, I think, key for McCain - not in the sense that a majority will vote based just on that issue, but that it is the easiest issue for McCain to question Obama’s judgement and further question Obama’s fitness to carry Afghanistan to victory. Obama is staking his foreign/military policy meme on a “get out of Iraq, win in Afghanistan” proposal - the narrative will be that Obama will “end” the war in Iraq so that we can, finally, win in Afghanistan and thus repair all the damage President Bush has done and McCain proposes to continue. But this is a two-edged sword Obama is wielding - McCain can point out that Obama’s defeatism when the going got tough in Iraq indicates that Obama will also flunk the test when things get rough in Afghanistan. Obama ran up the white flag once entirely un-necessarily, what can he say to demonstrate to us that he won’t surrender, again, in Afghanistan?
Obama is nothing but a story - a fraud wrapped up in an illusion. As long as no one points out the nakedness of this would-be Emperor, he’ll be fine. McCain’s job is to force people to see what Obama really is - an ambitious non-entity with no requisite experience justifying installing him in the most powerful position in the world. If the election revolves around which man has the better story, then Obama will be our next President - if the election revolves around who is best able to be President, McCain will be sworn in on January 20th. We’ll have to see if Obama can hide in plain sight until November, or if McCain will force him, naked, into the public view.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Republicans, War on Terror
28 Comments Add your own
1. neocon | July 22nd, 2008 at 10:07 am
Last night MSNBC was perpetuating the falsehood of Maliki’s endorsement of Obamas (current) plan, completely ignoring the the dishonest evolution of that plan:
October 2006 - Obama wanted a 16 month withdrawal and have all troops out by March 2008. This position was not supported by Maliki.
January 2007 - Obama did not support the surge. This position was not supported by Maliki.
July 2007 - Obama wanted to immediately withdraw all troops, despite the possibility of genocide. This position was not supported by Maliki.
November 2007 - Obama again wanted to withdraw all troops in 16 months, completing the withdraw in 2009. This position was not supported by Maliki.
July 2008 - Obama again supports a 16 month withdrawal. This position was cautiously supported by Maliki.
Proving that a broken clock is right twice a day.
peace, neocon
2. majoriot | July 22nd, 2008 at 11:01 am
War, or the perpetuation of it, would seem to be the only topic McCain can try to use to his advantage.
However, I think the American public, and the Iraqi government, see a need to end the current situation. McCain has not offered enough in this direction, and when he does, he will be following, not leading, and the tankhuggers will be left bitter at the prospect of the curtailing of their Imperialist desires.
3. js | July 22nd, 2008 at 11:27 am
another pull down your pants exposure;
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/07/21/andrea-obama-trip-what-some-would-call-fake-interviews
Andrea Mitchell might be a doyenne of the liberal media, but she has her reporter’s pride and principles, both of which have been trampled by the way the Obama campaign has managed the media during the candidate’s current trip to Afghanistan and Iraq. Mitchell let loose on this evening’s Hardball, speaking of “fake interviews” and indicating we don’t know the truth of the trip because we don’t know what was edited out of the video that’s been released.
Before Mitchell made her displeasure known, Roger Simon of Politico, Chris Matthews’s other guest during the segment, depicted the images coming out of the war zone as all Obama could have dreamed of
4. bull | July 22nd, 2008 at 12:09 pm
mark levin had a great line yesterday. he said if mccain wanted this published in the new york “slime”, he should have mailed it to them with the words, “national security, top secret” on it.
yeah, that’s just about how it goes.
5. '08ama | July 22nd, 2008 at 12:42 pm
So let’s get this straight ….
This blog, Rush, Hannity, BillO, Drudge, the autistic Wiener Savage, FOX, and all other right wing pundits spend every second of their lives telling us what a horrible, biased paper the NYT is, how its subscription base is falling badly and what a plain old piece of crap the NYT is !
And yet, McSame is stopping at nothing to get his Op-Ed on the NYT while there are millions of other better qualified and less biased papers (i.e. The Washington Times) just begging to publish MCSame’s story.
am I missing something here ?
6. OhioOrrin | July 22nd, 2008 at 12:55 pm
hold the phone Mark - one cannot know that Obama is a “fraud wrapped-up in a illusion”.
how could we know…well, really anything of substance about him given his lack of experience.
he’s the perfect manchurian candidate.
hope is correct - his supporters hope they’re gonna get what they’re paying, err…make that voting for.
the framers created the electorial college to offset mass hysteria.
7. Dennis | July 22nd, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Obama remembers and McCain forgets that when there were no American troops in Iraq there was no al Qaeda. There were no car bombings and no Iranian extremists. Sunni and Shia lived next door to each other.
It is only since the arrival of American “liberators” that all these things have come to Iraq. As bad as Saddam Hussein was, Iraq’s security and infrastructure were sounder then than they are now. Far fewer people died violent deaths.
It is not unreasonable to believe that if the provocation of American presence were removed from Iraq, those who hate us might find less reason to be there. The Iraqi people would once again feel some ownership of their situation and be empowered to act on their own behalf.
Unless, of course, the warmakers’ plan is to completely emasculate the Iraqi people and make them perpetually dependent on an American presence. That way we can eventually make it just secure enough to start sucking their oil out. Of course our presence will guarantee that a war of attrition will continue to nibble away at the population.
It makes it all the better that security personnel and police recruits are the insurgents’ favorite targets, doesn’t it? That way all those who might “stand up so we can stand down” are continually picked off, and we get to stay forever. If McCain doesn’t get this he is an old fool. Obama certainly does.
8. neocon | July 22nd, 2008 at 1:40 pm
And the Democrats created super delegates for the probably the same reason.
LOL
neocon
9. hermie | July 22nd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
‘Fewer people met violent deaths’
Wow! Talk about denying reality. To liberals, the Hussein family torture chambers and rape rooms never really existed. The mass graves and the summary executions by Sadaam and his fun-loving sons are now just figments of our imagination.
Yep, to the liberal trolls here, it was no big deal to be ‘guests’ of the Hussein family.
Also, how do you know there were never any Al Queda in Iraq? Because Seymour Hersh heard it from one of his super-secret ’sources’?
10. neocon | July 22nd, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Dennis,
Thank you for Osama bin Ladens point of view. It’s alway good to know how the enemy perceives things.
have a nice day
peace, neocon
11. Dennis | July 22nd, 2008 at 2:22 pm
No, the torture chambers existed. But Saddam’s victims usually were political enemies, and ordinary people who kept their heads down were generally safe. A person could walk the streets at night. And as I have said here many times (and it usually gets deleted) Christians worshiped freely in Saddam’s Iraq.
Since the war began nobody has been safe - neither from American or insurgent bombs, or random shooting by paranoid security contractors. Hundreds of thousands have died who would not have died. Millions more have been made refugees. And tragically, Christians have fled Iraq, where there is no more freedom for them to practice their religion.
You invoke the names of the bogeymen everyone loves to hate to distract from the harder realities. You kiddies are free to think and play however you wish here in the Mark ‘n’ Matt sandbox. The real world goes on, however, and the American people have for the most part realized what fools they consented to lead them in 2000 and 2004, and are looking to correct that mistake.
12. Danish Artist | July 22nd, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Let’s see…..
NYT helps Obama, rejects McCain for irrational reasons.
Rasmusen poll shows that 50% of America believes that the MSM is actively helping Obama win the Presidency!
Dennis, still regurgitating the same debunked pre-Iraq war talking points.
Obama cannot answer a question without a teleprompter and remain coherent.
Liberals are hailing this guy as the sole savior of this country - a man with no experience and is naive with his global view.
Not surprising.
13. neocon | July 22nd, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Once again Dennis, getting Uday’s perception and UBL’s talking points on this issuse are important.
Can’t thank you enough for proving what level of moral relativism we’re up against.
I will say that your qualities self doubt and moral relativism are not impressive qualities. You may want to examine that.
Just saying
have a nice day
peace, neocon
14. Dennis | July 22nd, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Noonan, from the sandbox: “Obama is nothing but a story - a fraud wrapped up in an illusion.”
Fareed Zakaria, in current Newsweek: “[Obama] has been called a naive idealist. But in terms of foreign policy, he’s the true realist in the race.”
Noonan from the sandbox: “McCain’s job is to force people to see what Obama really is - an ambitious non-entity with no requisite experience.”
Zakaria from Newsweek: “Obama’s response to McCain’s proposals on Russia and China could have been drafted by Henry Kissinger or Brent Scowcroft… Obama seems - unusually for a modern-day Democrat - highly respectful of the realist tradition. And McCain, to an extent unusual for a traditional Republican, sees the world in moralistic terms…”
http://www.newsweek.com/id/147763
15. neocon | July 22nd, 2008 at 2:57 pm
“Fareed Zakaria, in current Newsweek: “[Obama] has been called a naive idealist. But in terms of foreign policy, he’s the true realist in the race.” - Dennis
Can’t thank you enough for sharing the opinion of a highly respected, unbiased, objective news sourve such as Newsweek. They really are credible aren’t they?
Also, a broken clock is always right twice a day, which appropriately describes Obama’s foreign policy. Throw enough positions out there and surely one will land, right?
have a relative day
peace, neocon
16. hermie | July 22nd, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Jeanne Dixon made her reputation as a ‘psychic’ because she supposedly ‘predeicted’ the JFK assassination.
Obama is the ‘Jeanne Dixon’ candidate. But this time, his predictions of the surge’s failure were unrealized; yet his legions of fans still have this idea that he is infallible.
17. Retired Spook | July 22nd, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Obama cannot answer a question without a teleprompter and remain coherent
Funny you should mention that, Danish. Rush just finished playing most of a 9 minute montage of the uh’s and er’s from Obama’s 40 minute news conference in Oman, Jordan this morning — 9 minutes out of 40 that were nothing by stammering!! No wonder he doesn’t want to engage McCain in a town hall forum. What an embarrassment!
18. neocon | July 22nd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I can tell you that I have subscribed to Newsweek for 18 years and I have always enjoyed Zakaria’s column, however they have fallen off the partisan cliff in the last year.
19. Dennis | July 22nd, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Neocon, as someone with connections to the Middle East going back decades I had heard more about Saddam’s atrocities in the 70s than most Americans had just before the present Iraq war. His genocide against the marsh Arabs was as heinous as his more well-known atrocities. The list really is quite long. Having spent time in Afghanistan I was also editorializing against the Taliban well before most people had heard their name, back when the world was fixated on Bosnia.
I and others advocated concerted and forceful international action to bring these extremists under control long before you or Noonan ever cared about them. Those with a background in Middle Eastern affairs knew it would take international action.
Bush came along with neither a clue about the enemies of civilization or the limitations of his own ignorance, and even less the limitations of military power disconnected from diplomacy. After 9/11 he had a chance to outdo his daddy in war. He got Saddam and good riddance - but in so doing unleashed forces he was completely unprepared to deal with. He opened Pandora’s box and every other damnable thing flew out. Some of us saw these things coming - we wanted the actions taken to be mindful and effective, not wantonly destructive, as they have been.
The Bush administration has epitomized the concept of moral relativism to a degree unprecedented by any other American presidency. As for the chest thumping right-wing chauvinists here, I don’t think they even understand the definition of the term.
As for Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek, he was an advocate of the Iraq war from the start. I have taken his opinions with a chunk of salt ever since. However much all the opponents of Bush’s war have been proven correct it is consistently the original supporters of it whose stars have risen, and Zakaria is no exception. So I fail to see why you should have a problem with his credibility.
20. neocon | July 22nd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Dennis,
I like McCains chances really well.
Posted on Sunday, July 13, 2008 3:29:41 PM by jveritas
In the ongoing AOL straw poll McCain is winning 50 states and 64% of the popular vote. Almost 200,000 people have voted so far.
Here is the link:
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/07/07/aol-straw-poll-july-7-14
In addition I will say only that your opinion is duly noted, but it is just that, an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions.
And current events just don’t support your worldview. Granted, the post war startegy was woefully deficient, but the surge and diplomacy have turned things around rather nicely. So for you to continue to trump a 4 year old liberal meme is just irrelevant and quite frankly embarrasing.
have a nice day
peace, neocon
21. Rana Quijotesca | July 22nd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
You should read this with an open mind; I know you won’t but it was worth a try… The main crux of the article is that saying that the surge was entirely (or even mostly) responsible for the current situation is a gross simplification, considering the sheer vastness of variables involved. In fact, Nouri Al-Maliki doesn’t give the surge any credit for the reduction in violence.
Interesting question: What would the conservatives on this site advocate if the Iraqis asked us to leave by 2010 (regardless of the situation on the ground)?
Neocon, if there was anything that Ron Paul taught us, it’s that internet polls are essentially worthless, because some people have nothing better to do than spam polls with votes for their candidate. For example, I voted once, cleared my cookies, and voted again… In fact, any self-respecting statistician (I assume they exist) would laugh if you tried to use that poll as evidence for an argument.
22. The New Conservative | July 22nd, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I wrote a great article about this on my blog
http://www.thenewconservatives.blogspot.com/
23. neocon | July 22nd, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Excellent analysis Rana,
I consider all polls to be essentially worthless, but our resident liberals consider them to be gospel (oops, maybe a bad choice of words), especially if those polls support their position.
So I thought I would throw this poll out to see what responses I received. You did not disappoint.
Thanks
neocon
P.S. And re: your “simplification” of the surge. I really tend not to listen to people on current events who have been proven wrong on all past events.
And if you’re suggesting that our military was just an unexpected benficiary of other events that turned the tide in Iraq, then you are definitely drinking the kool aid.
bottoms up
peace, neocon
24. cam | July 22nd, 2008 at 6:55 pm
The surge appears to have acheived some success. At least the relative calm that is being reported happened after the surge. However, the long term effect of the surge has yet to be determined. Further, the actual cause and effect relationship between the two has not been established. There certainly are other explanations for the relative calm in Iraq. The insurgents and militias may have decided to try a different tact, that is to wait out the eventual withdrawal or reduction of American forces. It may be a case of “keeping the powder dry” Regardless it is amazing that over a period of 5 years the conservatives said we should hold judgement on this war but now that there has been a couple of months of relative calm they quickly call it success. Sounds similar to “Mission Accomplished”
And still, no one has defined success in Iraq and no one who talks about success has any idea about what to do next. While they propose that this was all about democracy. At the moment that anyone like Al Maliki tries to exercise it the chorus of “you owe us” and “we’ll leave when we are good and ready” betrays the real motives here.
25. Tractatus | July 22nd, 2008 at 9:37 pm
I really tend not to listen to people on current events who have been proven wrong on all past events.
So you don’t listen to yourself or your fellow wingnuts, then? Good to know.
26. Mark Noonan | July 22nd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
cam,
We’ve defined success again and again and again…you just don’t like success in Iraq, so you say we haven’t defined it.
And, no, I won’t define it again - some months back I defined it for the very last time here on this blog. Look it up.
27. hermie | July 23rd, 2008 at 10:09 am
Remember Mark, that when goals have been met or are within reach, the libs move the goalposts and pretend their original goals never existed.
Sort of like bringing gas prices down from those 2006 amounts of $2.50/gal with a ‘comprehensive energy plan’.
28. test » Blog Archive&hellip | July 23rd, 2008 at 10:15 am
[…] Aaron J. Brown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptObama is staking his foreign/military policy meme on a “get out of Iraq, win in Afghanistan” proposal - the narrative will be that Obama will “end” the war in Iraq so that we can, finally, win in Afghanistan and thus repair all the … Read the rest of this great post here […]
Leave a Comment
Please report any inappropriate or abusive comments to abuse@blogsforvictory.com. Please include the blog entry title and the comment number.
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed