The country elected a Democratic congress in 2006 to end the war. They didn't.
For president, the Democratic party nominated, and the country elected, the candidate who was against the war initially and promised to end it immediately. He won't.
All indications are that the agreement negotiated by the Bush administration, keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for three more years, until 2011, will be honored by the incoming Obama administration.
Anyone notice that?
3 comments:
Come on Barry.
He stopped promising to pull out "immediately" and got moderate in his stance on Iraq LONG before the general election. This is no surprise to me. He basically nodded his head and agreed with McCain on the Middle East throughout their debates. The ME wasn't even an issue running up to this election.
Thanks to George W. Bush and to the detriment of McCain's election chances, the US is on the brink of actually WINNING the "endless quagmire" which will desolve into a "civil war" Iraq war. So in the general election The Messiah could pretty much ignore Iraq altogether and focus on promising lots of goodies to 95% of us.
All that "I'll end it right now" stuff was just red meat to throw to the hard core left he needed to win over in the primaries, in order to solidify the Dem "base" and distinguish himself from Hillary. Who is just your normal DC insider liberal instead of a campus Marxist, which is a hell of a lot more sexy to most of your fellow democrats early in primary season.
Nobody other than your party's moonbat hopey-changitude left actually BELIEVED his crap of 9 months ago. It's all wink wink, say what we need to say to get the nomination. And sure enough, his transition team is just a bunch of re-cylced Clintonites and other various DC establishment insider Re-treads. Tom Daschle? LOL. Gee what a surprise. "New politics." "Change."
My ass. LOL.
All initial indications are that he is shaping up to govern as a standard Clintonian/Carter DC establishment liberal. Except I'm expecting Carter-esque ineptitude on foreign affairs; and FDR-ish heavy-handedness on domestic affairs - but more stupidly implemented.
Not that I'm pessimistic or anything. :)
There is no strong conservative opposition to oppose him or slow him down; and complete and total incompetant clueless idiots are in charge over on the Hill (Reid, Pelosi, Dodd, Frank, et al). So we're all in for a big dose of big government insanely inefficent socialist policies in the years to come.
This is commentary from a conservative blog called powerline, which says it a lot better than I can:
"Barack Obama did not simply play the hand he dealt himself. He dealt himself two hands. The first was the one he dealt himself as a long-shot candidate and McGovernite antiwar throwback in the primaries.
Playing that hand with a very cold cynicism, he hammered Clinton for supporting the Kyl-Lieberman amendment while he himself missed the vote and refused to take a position until after the vote occurred. Then the morning after Obama sewed up the Democratic nomination in June, he appeared before AIPAC and enthusiastically supported the position regarding the IRGC that he had previously castigated throughout the campaign.
The Kyl-Lieberman example is only a token of the second hand Barack Obama dealt himself -- the one he dealt himself for the general election campaign. In the general election, Obama all but presented himself (to use Mitt Romney's formulation) as something of a moderate Republican.
Having nailed down his party's left-wing base during the primaries, Obama followed Richard Nixon's adage and tacked to the middle for the general election. Indeed, on the question of taxes and even of Pakistan, he positioned himself to John McCain's right.
Senator Clinton never made it out of the primaries, but her campaign had been oriented from the outset toward the general election. We can only wonder what steps she might have taken to present herself as a general election candidate. And perhaps only HIllary Clinton herself can fully appreciate the peculiar cynicism of Obama's campaign."
the far-left seems to view Iraq as a repeat of Vietnam and acted accordingly.
The US didn't have much of a strategic need to win Vietnam, other than to give a black-eye to Soviet/Chinese expansionism, but it was a long, losing war.
In Iraq, we won quickly, but we didn't prepare to fight the insurgency that followed.
Grownups recognize that no matter if it was the right decision to go into Iraq in the first place, pulling out in that state would lead to utter chaos, in an economically important and too-often unstable region. Because of that, I predicted the Dem congress wouldn't do anything substantial to end it prematurely. I doubted that even Obama would do the same.
Post a Comment