Posts filed under 'Republicans'
From Rasmussen:
Voters who have served in the U.S. military favor John McCain over Barack Obama by a 56% to 37% margin.
This data, from a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, is based upon interviews with 3,000 Likely Voters, including 588 voters who have served in the military. Voters with no military service favor Obama 50% to 43%.
Its simple, really - those of us who served are much better as spotting someone who is shining us on. A lot of illusions about human nature are stripped away when one is serving in close quarters with hundreds or thousands of other human beings for months on end without a break. I think it pretty fair to say that each of us veterans knew one or two people in service who were complete phonies who sounded like they knew what they were doing…
Tags: Barack Obama, John McCain, Polls, veterans
July 26th, 2008
Interesting opinion piece over at Opinion Journal:
A cry for help goes out from a city beleaguered by violence and fear: A beam of light flashed into the night sky, the dark symbol of a bat projected onto the surface of the racing clouds . . .
Oh, wait a minute. That’s not a bat, actually. In fact, when you trace the outline with your finger, it looks kind of like . . . a “W.”
There seems to me no question that the Batman film “The Dark Knight,” currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.
And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society — in which people sometimes make the wrong choices — and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell…
…Why is it then that left-wingers feel free to make their films direct and realistic, whereas Hollywood conservatives have to put on a mask in order to speak what they know to be the truth? Why is it, indeed, that the conservative values that power our defense — values like morality, faith, self-sacrifice and the nobility of fighting for the right — only appear in fantasy or comic-inspired films like “300,” “Lord of the Rings,” “Narnia,” “Spiderman 3″ and now “The Dark Knight”?
The moment filmmakers take on the problem of Islamic terrorism in realistic films, suddenly those values vanish. The good guys become indistinguishable from the bad guys, and we end up denigrating the very heroes who defend us. Why should this be?
The answers to these questions seem to me to be embedded in the story of “The Dark Knight” itself: Doing what’s right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous. Many have been abhorred for it, some killed, one crucified…
…When heroes arise who take those difficult duties on themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness. We prosecute and execrate the violent soldier or the cruel interrogator in order to parade ourselves as paragons of the peaceful values they preserve. As Gary Oldman’s Commissioner Gordon says of the hated and hunted Batman, “He has to run away — because we have to chase him.”
Being a coward is, pro-tempore, easier than being a hero - being a coward only requires that one do nothing; being a hero requires that one act. Of course, failure to act can land you, eventually, in much worse trouble than the immediate risk of acting, but a coward can always rationalise away future risks if it gets him out of the particular spot he’s in. While those who act are those who make things happen (good or bad, depending on the actor), it is only those who act nobly who are subjected to the calumny of the cowards. To insult the efforts of a wicked man, you see, is to take a brave stance - so much easier to call Marines in Haditha cold-blooded killers than to take on the cold-blooded killers the Marines are fighting.
The dichotomy between President Bush and the man who wants to replace him cannot be more stark - Obama is lauded for doing nothing; Bush is condemned for doing something. What did Obama do to garner support which eventually awarded him the Democratic nomination? He spoke out against liberating Iraq before the liberation was attempted. What did President Bush do to earn the hatred of the left? He ordered the liberation not of Iraq, but of Afghanistan. Oh, I know - we’ve spent so much time on Iraq that it seems that Iraq triggered leftwing hatred of Bush…but if you think back on it, you’ll remember that the first “anti-war” campaign post-9/11 was to keep us out of Afghanistan…because the Taliban hadn’t attacked us, because we shouldn’t get into the middle of a civil war, because it is impossible to defeat a terrorist enemy on his own ground, because it would be a humanitarian catastrophe. It wasn’t Iraq; it was the fact that President Bush proposed to do something - that is the source of the hatred.
Had President Bush made a few heart-rending speeches and merely promised the full weight of American law enforcement, he would still be disliked on the left for various reasons, but the hatred wouldn’t be there because in such a response there is no challenge to the cowardly. The coward, being able to look at a mere indictment of Osama bin Laden, can take all sorts of exception with what President Bush did…heck, the coward could even say that invading would be better…but there is no challenge; no forcing of a choice. No contrast between right and wrong. Obama doesn’t challenge - he tells the cowards that they were right, that we shouldn’t have acted - that being afraid to confront evil is the smart thing to do. He tells the coward that he never has to shoulder a heavy burden - that the UN, EU and everyone else on God’s earth will take care of it, but he’ll never be asked to sacrifice, save perhaps in a higher tax bill.
President Bush looked at the rubble of the Pentagon and WTC and was filled with a terrible resolve - that this shall not stand, and that those who did it will be made incapable of doing it again. For a while there, the overwhelming majority was with him - but as hard decision followed hard decision the siren song of defeatism and cowardice took its toll until, now, President Bush is in many ways the most unpopular man in the United States. All too many just wish he’d go away and stop demanding of us a hard courage to face the difficult tasks. Millions who hate President Bush will want him again, if we’re ever attacked like 9/11 again…but for now, they just want him get out, and allow a coward to stroke the ego of cowards.
And the only thing which may prevent this unhappy outcome? Another man of courage - John McCain. We’ll see in November if there is a majority of Americans still in favor of doing what is right, rather than talking about what is right and acting like talking is doing.
Tags: Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Defeaticrats, Iraq, John McCain, liberal lies
July 25th, 2008
Because abstractions are incapable of acting. People act, as Victor Davis Hanson notes regarding Senator Obama’s latest MSM leg-tingler:
With all due respect, I also don’t believe the world did anything to save Berlin, just as it did nothing to save the Rwandans or the Iraqis under Saddam — or will do anything for those of Darfur; it was only the U.S. Air Force that risked war to feed the helpless of Berlin as it saved the Muslims of the Balkans. And I don’t think we have much to do in America with creating a world in which “famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands.” Bad, often evil, autocratic governments abroad cause hunger, often despite rich natural landscapes; and nature, in tragic fashion, not “the carbon we send into atmosphere,” causes “terrible storms,” just as it has and will for millennia.
Perhaps conflict-resolution theory posits there are no villains, only misunderstandings; but I think military history suggests that culpability exists — and is not merely hopelessly relative or just in the eye of the beholder. So despite Obama’s soaring moral rhetoric, I am troubled by his historical revisionism that, “The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love.”
I would beg to differ again, and suggest instead that a mass-murdering Soviet tyranny came close to destroying the European continent (as it had, in fact, wiped out millions of its own people) and much beyond as well — and was checked only by an often lone and caricatured US superpower and its nuclear deterrence. When the Soviet Union collapsed, there was no danger to the world from American nuclear weapons “destroying all we have built” — while the inverse would not have been true, had nuclear and totalitarian communism prevailed. We sleep too lightly tonight not because democratic Israel has obtained nuclear weapons, but because a frightening Iran just might.
The world will not come together. It won’t solve our problems. We, people, have to actually get out there and do things…if what is meant by “the world” is a UN resolution condemning the crime of Darfur, then that is worse than doing nothing…what is needed is for those oh, so liberal people out there to find someone like Kitchener and send a punitive expedition to the Sudan to force the Sudanese government to stop being a bunch of inhuman savages. You want to “free Tibet”? Then gather yourself money and arms and infiltrate Tibet and start to set up revolutionary cells to expell the Chinese invaders. You want to help the poor? Then you can at least donate some money to Missionaries of the Poor…if you’re waiting for “the world” to do it, you’ll be waiting a long time. Its up to you, ya see?
The high flown rhetoric of Obama hides nothing - and not in the sense that Obama’s got nothing to hide; he’s hiding the fact that there’s nothing there. Under a President Obama we’ll have many, many meetings in many, many ritzy areas of the world and we’ll hear from many, many people telling us of the plight of this or that people or thing…and money will be appropriated and Nobel Prizes awarded…and nothing will have been done, because people didn’t actually go and do something about the problem. We had during the 8 years of Clinton lots of talk of doing things and not much action - and the worst offenders are those very same European elites who hail Obama as the man to lead the world…it was the Europeans, after all, who sat on their hands and talked about doing something in Yugoslavia as the horrors of World War Two were repeated, nightly, on their television sets.
What we want in a President is a man who will do something - McCain is that man. He won’t wait for the UN to have a conference, but will dive right in looking for a practical solution that actual people can carry out in a short amount of time. All through Obama’s thought runs the idea that we’ll do things, one day, after we’ve talked about them, for a while…all of McCain’s thought is centered on what we can do, right now, to make things better for people. Think about it for a moment - who has done more for others: the Marine in Anbar or the head of the UN High Commission on Human Rights? The one does, the other talks. Talk is, as they say, cheap.
And so, my friends, is Obama - just a man who moralises on the cheap and never puts himself out to actually do something. Afraid of his own shadow, Obama hides behind a mountain of words which sound sweet in the ears of those who want others to do the heavy lifting…but which disgust anyone who has ever done anything.
UPDATE: Gerard Baker has a hilarious send up of the Obama phenonema. A sample:
And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.
The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.
When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”
Read the whole thing.
Tags: Barack Obama, John McCain
July 25th, 2008
While Presidenator Obama (D-Utopia) practices the poses he’ll strike on January 20th, 2009, Senator John McCain continues to act like there’s actually an election to get through before the coronation of His Anti-Imperialist Majesty, Barack I:
McCain Makes Significant Gains in Key Battleground States
Majority of Voters in Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin Favor Keeping Troops in Iraq, According to Quinnipiac-washingtonpost.com-Wall Street Journal Survey
Republican John McCain has quickly closed the gap between himself and Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama in several key battleground states even as the Arizona senator struggles to break through the wall-to-wall coverage of Obama’s trip to Europe and the Middle East this week.
McCain and Obama are in a statistical dead heat in Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota while the Illinois senator has a more comfortable double-digit edge in Wisconsin, according to polling conducted by Quinnipiac University for washingtonpost.com and the Wall Street Journal during the past week. Only in Colorado, however, does McCain hold a greater percentage of the vote share than Obama.
About that wall-to-wall coverage of Obama overseas - I wonder if its really helping matters for Obama? Certainly his goal was to give himself foreign policy credentials (as if waltzing ’round Europe makes one a regular Bismarck in foreign policy)…but the way he’s acting like he’s already President is, well, nauseating…and I think it starts to grate on people.
In keeping with Obama’s delusions of Presidential grandeur, what he’s doing is running like he’s the incumbant President - a “Rose Garden” strategy of loftily ignoring his opponent and allowing his stellar record in the White House carry the day for him. Its a great idea, but Obama would be better advised to use it in 2012, supposing he wins in 2008. Believe it or not, Senator, you actually have to win in November - and there isn’t a single poll out there since the absurd Newsweek poll showing anything other than a tight electoral battle (and I do wonder if, perhaps, Obama believes the Newsweek poll?).
The advantage still, barely, lies with Obama - call it a 52% chance of an Obama win. Last week, if the election were held then, I figured Obama for a winner…this week? Not quite so sure anymore.
Tags: Barack Obama, Battleground States, John McCain
July 25th, 2008
Nothing like getting “backs agains the wall” to shake a person up and make them realise that they’re in the fight:
Two influential American Evangelical leaders have taken a new interest in the 2008 presidential race, with one saying that he leans toward the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, while another plans to host the first head-to-head meeting of the two leading contenders for the White House.
Dr. James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, told a radio audience: “While I am not endorsing Senator John McCain, the possibility is there that I might.” Dr. Dobson, who commands a wide following among conservative Evangelicals, had previously said that he could not support McCain because of the senator’s support for embryo research and his failure to back a constitutional amendment protecting marriage.
However, Dr. Dobson said that the “radical positions on life, marriage, and national security” taken by Senator Barack Obama were pushing him toward McCain.
Meanwhile Rick Warren, the leader of one of America’s largest “mega-church” congregations, the Saddleback Church in California, has announced plans to hold a forum that would hear both Obama and McCain. Warren, the author of The Purpose-Driven Life, will bring the Democratic and Republican candidates together for an August 16 event that, he says, will be “an unprecedented opportunity for America to hear both men back-to-back on the same platform.” Warren, who has not previously taken an active role in partisan politics, will be the only person questioning the candidates at the August 16 event.
There was much talk as McCain emerged the clear front runner for the GOP nomination about sitting this one out - Evangelicals because McCain wasn’t 100% (in their view ) and movement conservatives because, once again, McCain wasn’t 100% (in their view). My grandfather had a saying that I’ve laid to heart - better to have 10% of something than 100% of nothing. Whatever McCain may or may not do in the White House, we can rest assured that Obama will be worse for Christian conservatives and movement conservatives….there is, actually, not one position Obama has staked out which can be called by conservatives and conservative Christians better than the McCain position.
As for me, I’ve grown “re-comfortable” with McCain - he was, after all, my main serious choice for 2000 (Bush came in after him, one other person came in front of McCain, but mostly for fun on my part). McCain did much to annoy me since 2001 - most notably on refusing to back the tax cuts and the “gang of 14″ nonsense in the Senate (immigraiton reform? Sorry, but I backed the McCain/Bush proposal, and still do), but I am one of those who understands that people are, well people and I’m certainly not perfect and if I’m going to refuse to support anyone but the perfect conservative then I’ll never be able to support anyone. McCain is a good man, a war hero, a solid patriot, a man of moral courage - these are the qualities I want in a President and, at any rate, I love a respectful, intra-party fight anyways, so I’ll still battle President McCain on such things as CFR. For me, McCain wasn’t my first pick, but he’s an excellent pick, all the same.
Given such things as Obama’s support for the fanatic, pro-abortion proposals and other Obama policies directly contravening basic Christian teaching, it is no surprise that Evanglicals are starting to swing behind McCain in a serious way. America can’t afford four years of Carter, Part Two. Obama is a catastrophe in the making - but one we can un-make, if we’ll just rally ’round the man who is best for President in 2008, John McCain
Tags: Evangelicals, John McCain
July 24th, 2008
Interesting recent poll from Rasmussen:
Nearly half of Americans (48%) now believe the United States and its allies are winning the War on Terror, as opposed to 20% who give the nod to the terrorists, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national survey. These figures reflect a dramatic improvement from a year ago—in July 2007, only 36% thought the U.S. and its allies were winning. An equal number thought the terrorists held the advantage.
The 28-point difference is the most favorable margin recorded by Rasmussen Reports since tracking began in January 2004 and seems to reflect a growing confidence among adults that the tide is turning in Iraq and in the war on terror in general. The previous high was established on September 6, 2004 when 52% thought the U.S. and its allies were winning but 26% thought the terrorists were winning at that time for a 26-point favorable margin.
Thirty-seven percent (37%) now think the situation in Iraq will get better over the coming six months while only 25% expect it to get worse. A year ago, the assessment was far more pessimistic—just 23% said that things would get better while 49% offered the more pessimistic response. Another recent poll showed that 40% now believe it is possible for the U.S. to win the War in Iraq.
The new findings also show 45% now believe the United States is safer today than it was before the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, while 37% believe otherwise. Those figures are also the most optimistic on record.
The standard line about the end of the Cold War is that by putting the fear of nuclear war to bed, it allowed for a foreign policy lightweight - Bill Clinton- to win the White House. Its a great theory, but it forgets that 57% of the American people voted against Bill Clinton in 1992…hardly a ringing endorsement of Clinton’s policy prescriptions. But, today, the same idea is alive and well - heck, over at NRO’s The Corner some people seem to think that the mis-reported story of Maliki on Obama’s Iraq plan has pretty much wrecked McCain’s chances for November. The word is out - the American people really, really want to vote for a Democrat in November and McCain’s only shot was to convince the American people that with a war going on, placing our bets on the inexperienced Obama was too dangerous. And now that victory is breaking out in Iraq, that line is gone for good.
While there are a couple of third party candidates out there on the left and the right, my view is that for Obama to win he’s going to have to do something that no Democrat has managed in 32 years - score an outright majority of the vote in November. He can do it, but thus far the polling shows him consistently falling short and never showing any movement which would indicate he’s on his way to a majority. McCain seems stuck in the electoral doldrums, too - hardly ever breaking 45% in polling (though Rasmussen has recently showed Obama and McCain tied at 46%). What it seems to me is that while Obama has wowed his base, he’s not doing much with anyone else - meanwhile, McCain is doing remarkably well amongst independent voters, but has yet to enthuse the GOP base for November. Key to victory for McCain is energising the base, key for Obama is appealing outside the left.
In this McCain has an advantage. Obama is pretty much locked in to very leftwing positions - he’s tried to triangulate himself out of them, but he can’t stray too far towards the center lest he alienate too much of his base. McCain, on the other hand, has plenty of chances to make the argument to the GOP base that they’d better get excited about him - on taxes, spending, judges and the war, McCain is just what the GOP doctor ordered. McCain has two ways to do his job - propose conservative ideas, and point out Obama’s ultra liberal ideas, and what they’ll mean for America. In both cases, McCain can make a strong pitch for enthused GOP support.
So, while Obama and his Democrats might be thinking that the victory in Iraq gets them off the hook and they can just say “Afghanistan” from time to time and allow domestic issues to carry them to victory, in my view the victory in Iraq gives McCain the chance to force Obama on the defensive initially on just war issues, but eventually on the worthiness of his whole program. A man who can be so wrong about Iraq can also be wrong about other things - like whether or not he’ll be able to stick it out in Afghanistan; whether or not his health care plan is good for America; whether or not his energy policy has what it takes…on issue after issue, Obama’s manifestly bad judgement on Iraq can be used to question his fitness on other issues. And while doing this, McCain can continually point out his correctness on Iraq and how this courageous and right decision lays the groundwork for him to have the courage and wisdom to tackle judicial issues, Afghanistan, taxation, government waste, etc, etc, etc.
If attitudes about the war are improving as Rasmussen’s survey shows, then there may soon come a time when McCain’s pro-victory stance from 2007 switches from liability to asset, while Obama’s 2007 defeatism (already being shoved down the memory hole as far as Obama can manage it) will show through more and more as the foolhardy opinion of a man who hasn’t the knowledge, guts or wisdom to be President.
Tags: Barack Obama, Defeaticrats, Iraq, John McCain, liberal lies, Troop Surge
July 23rd, 2008
So says Kate Sheppard over at In These Times, by reason of McCain’s pro-life stance - calling a it “war on women”:
McCain’s campaign has been making a clear play for women voters in recent weeks, hosting conference calls with Republican women and touting that his policies on national security, the economy and healthcare appeal to women voters.
But the suggestion that women — and feminist women, at that — will be lining up behind him is a fairytale. At least, it should be. McCain’s record and policies on issues of importance to women are neither moderate nor maverick.
In The Nation, Katha Pollitt put it simply: “[T]o vote for McCain, a feminist would have to be insane.”…
…the number of progressive or even moderate voters who would seriously consider voting for McCain is much smaller than the media would have you believe. Unfortunately, McCain’s propaganda seems to be working, at least on those who aren’t aware of his record on issues of concern to women voters.
A February Planned Parenthood poll of 1,205 women voters in 16 battleground states found that 50 percent of women voters don’t know McCain’s position on abortion, and that 49 percent of women who backed McCain were pro-choice. Forty-six percent of women supporting McCain said they’d like to see Roe v. Wade upheld — though McCain says he supports overturning the decision. When they learned of his position on Roe, 36 percent of women who identified as both pro-choice and likely McCain voters said they would be less likely to vote for him.
These moderate, often suburban, middle-class women could be critical swing voters this election. At the time of the Planned Parenthood poll, Obama held only a 5 percentage-point margin over McCain with its swing-state demographic, 41 percent to 36 percent.
Planned Parenthood concludes that these findings suggest “that just filling in McCain’s actual voting record and his publicly stated positions on a handful of key issues has the potential to diminish his total vote share among battleground women voters by about 17 to 20 percentage points.”
All of that predicated on a theory that women are so in love with abortion that the mere fact of McCain’s opposition will doom him - such theory being a standard on the left every election cycle with the only flaw being that it never comes out that way. We GOPers are always warned that our pro-life stance will destroy us at the polls and yet we manage to win from time to time (like 7 out of the last 10 times - and the times we lost it wasn’t because we’re pro-life). Be that as it may, does McCain’s pro-life view make him a sexist at war with women?
If you’re a leftist, it does - because for the left, abortion has become a sacrament in the Church of Secularism. As a Catholic views Annointing of the Sick (”last rites” for you non-Catholics out there), so the leftist views abortion - a thing not done all the time, but vital to the overall health of the organism. To be opposed to abortion on the left is akin to being opposed to forgiveness of sins in Christianity - it just isn’t done. So entrenched is this view that even someone as kooky as Kucinich was forced to drop a lifetime of pro-life views when he made his quixotic run for the White House. Calling McCain a “sexist” is just liberal-speak for saying “he disagrees with us on abortion”.
And thus the real battle is joined - in the end, Iraq, Afghanistan, oil prices, inflation and the rest are all secondary: the dividing line in America is over the issue of Life. The Culture of Life battles the Culture of Death, and eventually America will become all one thing or all the other. That is, all Life or all Death.
The particular issue, abortion, won’t be on the ballot - but the mindset which allows abortion and the mindset which seeks its end will be, and in this year of 2008 the stakes are very crucial as the judges who will either overturn or uphold Roe for another generation are likely to be appointed by the next President. It will be one battle in a long war, but for those of us who fight for Life, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
Tags: abortion, culture of death, Culture of Life, Feminism, John McCain, Planned Parenthood
July 23rd, 2008
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.
Tags: Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Iraq, John McCain, liberal lies, Troop Surge
July 22nd, 2008
Bob Novak says the decision is coming this week:
Sources close to Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign are suggesting he will reveal the name of his vice presidential selection this week while Sen. Barack Obama is getting the headlines on his foreign trip. The name of McCain’s running mate has not been disclosed, but Mitt Romney has led the speculation recently.
I don’t know if he will, but this certainly gives us a new chance to discuss VP pick speculation.
Tags: Bob Novak, John McCain
July 22nd, 2008
Older Posts
