Ironically, success of the surge in Iraq is helping Obama

Go down

Ironically, success of the surge in Iraq is helping Obama

Post by Bambaboo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:08 pm

Ironically, success of the surge in Iraq is helping Obama


From Friday's Globe and MailJuly 10, 2008 at 9:23 PM EDT

WASHINGTON It is the strangest of political ironies. Every report out of Iraq suggests that John McCain's campaign to rescue that plagued country through a surge in troop strength has worked.

But it is Barack Obama who may stand to reap the benefits.

The situation in Iraq appears to have improved beyond anyone's hopes or expectations. The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has achieved effective control over much of the country, thanks to a much-improved Iraqi security force bolstered by increased oil revenues.

The U.S. general in charge of training the Iraqi military said this week that its army would be self-sustaining and able to exert authority in all parts of Iraq "by the middle of next year."

Security gains "are dramatic," Lieutenant-General James Dubik told the House armed services committee, though he stressed those gains could still be reversed.

The size of the Iraqi security forces has increased over the past year from 444,000 to 566,000, the quality of the officer corps has considerably improved, and the Iraqi army is increasingly able to act on the ground without American reinforcements, though it still requires U.S. logistical and air support.

As a result, the al-Maliki government is now demanding that a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops be part of an agreement that Iraq and the United States are trying to reach concerning future American troop deployments in Iraq.

"We will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn't have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq," Iraq's national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, said earlier this week.

Mr. McCain should take deep satisfaction from this demand. For years, he maintained that stability in Iraq would only be achieved if the United States greatly increased its military presence there.

After every other strategy had failed, President George W. Bush finally came around to Mr. McCain's view. The surge of troop strength in 2007 is paying handsome dividends in 2008.

Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq, which in retrospect was politically astute, and opposed the surge, which may have been less astute, since the surge worked.

So during this election campaign, the success of the surge should rebound in Mr. McCain's favour. In fact, the opposite may be true.

"Ironically, the success of the surge has made life easier for Barack Obama," Dan Senor believes. Mr. Senor is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and a former adviser on Iraq to the Bush administration.

First of all, as the situation in Iraq improves, national security, where Mr. McCain is seen as stronger than Mr. Obama, recedes from the public consciousness and the domestic economy, where Mr. Obama has the advantage over Mr. McCain, becomes the primary focus of the presidential election campaign.




Posts : 54
Join date : 2008-07-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ironically, success of the surge in Iraq is helping Obama

Post by williambedloe on Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:20 am

Isn't that just a peach? Obama has risked nothing - much like the Dems...and since Repubs cannot tout their own success and turn it into an advantage, these do nothings get the credit...and why do they get the credit? It's due to pufff pieces like these. Did anyone read that joke of a journalist Michael Kinsley and his piece beggin Dems to play along in TIME? Here it is:,9171,1821662,00.html
Here's a pearl:
Democrats aren't like that. It's not that they're too nice or too principled, or too unwilling to be ruthless. The hatred of George W. Bush on the left--and the eagerness to see him gone--is at this point as extreme as anything the right has to offer. (I know this because I share it.)

So much for journalistic integrity - these guys are in the tank for the left and always have been. They are merely a mouthpiece for the left. Most are probably failures at everything else they've ever tried. They can do nothing but tear down. They have been wrong on all counts. Gutless failures - and now they are attempting to rewrite history.

With Obama, I know why blacks in the US want him in. For many black citizens, it represents the dream that even the least of them can aspire to the highest office in the land - a noble dream and one worthy of pursuit. For others, it is the notion that there will finally be someone in office who understands them. For a few, it will be a chance to exact vengeance on whites for years of oppressive rule. The reasons are many - and understandable.

But what about white leftist elitists? For years they have been content to see blacks sectioned off in their own "minority". Blacks were simply a voting bloc that needed their help. With Obama however, they have called off the dogs when it comes to vetting this guy. Why? Why will they not write articles about his policy positions? Most of the articles I read in the MSM are either puff pieces about him or articles in which he is criticizing McCain and Bush. He has also shown a great deal of inexperience and thin skin. During the primaries, even Hillary complained about the soft treatment he was getting. I had to ask myself why?

Now I know - the one thing about all white elitist leftists that is common is self loathing. Part of self loathing is guilt. They feel guilt - guilt about slavery. By electing Obama, they can put aside some of the guilt they feel - about their own racist country. What they don't realize is that they are still doing what they are so good at - reducing the sum total of an individual to skin color. The ultimate respect you pay someone is to debate their beliefs and make them earn respect - not allow them to skate without a test. Tests are a way of life in this country - it allows people to prove their own worth. This glorification and deification of Obama is a product of white guilt. To alleviate this guilt, they will do what they can to ensure he wins (the Kinsley puff piece is just more evidence of this).
I would be willing to bet that many whites on the left side of the fence will vote for Obama simply because they want to tell people how progressive they are - "Hey, I'm not racist! i voted for a black man!"

The problem is that by voting based on the color of skin, they have proven that the opposite is true.
I'm not saying that all votes for Obama from whites are guilt votes. The problem I have seen however is that hardly anyone I have spoken to who supports Obama does so based on his policy positions (and I have spoken to many here in DC, as this is THE topic around town). It is not his body of work that matters, or his beliefs, but his skin color.
Forum Leader

Posts : 45
Join date : 2008-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum