Tuesday, July 15, 2008

THIS WAR...by Barack Obama (not so fast..by Z)


You know, I have mixed emotions about this war...but this speech by Obama just seemed a little bizarre to me and I want to address it:


CHICAGO — The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.


Um. This has been the Bush Plan from the start. "when Iraqi troops can take over, we'll pull out troops."

The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.


As much as we value every single American life, this is the smallest amount of deaths we've ever suffered in any war. Wasn't the toppling of Saddam worth going into Iraq for? What about the intelligence we saw at the time? Why aren't you discussing the yellow cake that was recently moved, which even the Assoc. Press admitted was "part of Saddam's nuclear ambition". WHAT? I thought he had no ambitions and there was no stockpiling supporting those ambitions?


In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.
But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.


Wouldn't you say this is a great step for Iraq? The surge accomplished what you just complimented, Mr. Obama. Funny, the left's always talking about the horrid things we've done to Iraq; if we only HAD, wouldn't it have included taking their oil?! Maybe we should have just taken some of those tens of billions we deserve, huh? I mean, if it WAS 'for OIL", why aren't we ROLLING in it?


The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.


NOW you've got it, Barack! THIS was exactly what we've been waiting and hoping for in Iraq. You were the one against this war, now YOUR plan is to capitalize on exactly what George Bush had said might happen? The good news is this is exactly what we hoped for......but, you're still saying you were against this war..!! Could we have come to this point (Saddam gone, Iraqis ready to take over) without it?


Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.


It's NUMBERS, Barack. Would you take EVERYONE out of there in 2009? You really think all those lives we lost aren't worth sticking around a bit to make SURE the Iraqis can take over?


But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.
As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.


Not ALL American people think staying is a bad thing, Barack. PLEASE don't speak for me. Ah, so now you're touting and planning the exact thing Bush and McCain had originally hoped for? GOOD, Barack..glad to hear it.


In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.


Oh, and just how do you plan to protect our interests with no troops left behind to do exactly that? Which countries in the region are so happy to support US? Iran? Syria? Saudi Arabia? WHAT? Which of these countries are SO friendly to us that they'd help us? And, I guess your idea of supporting Iraq's refugees is bringing them all to California, RIGHT?


Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.


Barack...everybody wants to reduce our commitment to Iraq, buddy. That IS the 'plan' you say never existed.


As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.


BARACK OBAMA: WAR EXPERT.


In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.


WHAT is the difference between keeping some presence in S. Korea and keeping a presence in Iraq? Aren't Iraqis as important as S. Koreans? Mightn't we need to have something there in case we have problems in IRAN? Do you think IRAN likes us there? Doesn't it send a pretty good message to Iran to behave while America's deployed over there, right next door?

It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.


No, they're not false charges, pal...they're valid. And Americans do NOT surrender.


good speech, Barack...now write it again with love of America, safety for Iraqis, and a dislike for Iran's government as your motivation. That might help. Thanks.
What do you all think? Help me out here........................


23 comments:

Papa Frank said...

Great assessment of this speech Z! Once again -- you are a blog goddess! It's funny how Bush gets more blame than is even possible and none of the credit. Also, how nobody sees the big picture of this being one of the least deadliest wars ever fought by America.

Z said...

Oh, man, Pops..am I relieved. If I have any expertise about a subject in politics, war isn't one of them, but I listened to him this morning give the speech about Iraq and I was stunned at the constant contradictions!

How can you say the war isn't working but now that it is, we're done?

nanc said...

he's GOT to be done on both sides, all the flipping. he's worse than her heinous in the panderbearing department.

HE'S A FREAK!

there, i said it because nobody else would. or as pop would say, "he's a freaky-freakin'-freaky-deakin'-freaking-freaked-out mess!"

...and that's just pop being nice...

Nikki said...

Z, I agree he sounds like a waffler...I think his base is not going to be happy and he is walking a very tight rope. He is now McCain and Bush. I am sick and tired of his bringing up his intitial opposition to the conflict. I think it is moot and will prove to be in hindsight. Don't over hype a stance that could prove to be fatal in the future. I supported the war, I support it now and I think americans will be thanking Bush as history proves this to be a viable conflict. Even though it has been grossly mishandled...great post! :)N

WomanHonorThyself said...

but he hates America..and we all know it...pfft!..great read Z!

Papa Frank said...

It's hysterical how the lefties still cry that the war is/was all about oil. I hear that all the time at work. These are the same morons that swear that guns kill people and won't ever place the responsibility for violence on the people and not the guns.

Anonymous said...

Z,
Good post. I was tempted just to read your blurbs, which are alot more interesting than Obama's pandering, because he wastes so much time talking through his hat, it's meaningless.

Who the hell knows what he'd do? You can't tell from what he says on any given day.
The only big picture the left is capable of seeing is confiscating any wealth Americans have accumulated and using it to their advantage.

Yep. They have all the patience when it comes to making us all equally poor.

I think even Obama, would have to listen to our commanders on the ground. I also believe we will have a presence there for a long time.

But, when it comes to Obama's speeches? They don't mean anything and he doesn't get called on any of his self-contradictions. The more I see and hear him the more I don't want to.

I do enjoy the chance to say, this guy bores me to tears.

Thanks blog goddess!
Pris

namaste said...

he's definitely speaking out of BOTH sides of his mouth here. and you know what i get as i "listen" to him. a strong sense that he's convinced that american voters are stupid, relying also on his perception (or what he was coached to understand): the american voters don't listen very well.

well done, z.

Z said...

thanks, you guys.

I HONESTLY am SO not an expert on wars, but when he literally implied that "the war is NOT working but now that it IS, we're leaving", I thought "okay, Barack...let me answer you here, OKAY?"

You guys nailed it with your comments; flip flopper, pandering, speaking out both sides of his mouth.. self contradictory..the whole gambit.

And boring, as Pris says. You know, I don't like his politics AT ALL but at least he could have waited till he was more seasoned, more experienced, and THEN made his lunge for the presidency...he's just so wet behind the ears, so green, so STUCK reading that teleprompter......he isn't READY! And he wants to RUN OUR COUNTRY? (ya...into the ground...)

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

It’s time to end this war.

Tell it to the ones who are plotting the next terror attack against us and our interests.

The "war" (a battle, really) in Iraq ended. We're involved in the clean up process and tail end of a failed insurgency.

This man does not deserve the presidency.

Please, America: Wake up!

z,

Try e-mailing me at fight+flip-N-fold+

at

adelphia

dot

net

(take out the plus and minuses). It's an account I don't really use much, but I'll check into it, for the sake of that Armenian hotdog.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

"I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks."

And you voted against giving contracts for port operations to Dubai because... ?

Anonymous said...

Good article, and GREAT commentary! Well done Z.

"I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat..."

This is THE most common leftist talking point/lie that I hear from the Dems.

1. We are not "distracted" by the war in Iraq. It has become the MOST effective method for sending Al Qaida terrorists to the eternal dirt nap. Iraqis have rejected them as foreigners and are helping us kill them in large numbers.

2. The "world" (Canada, Australia, GB, Germany and Denmark) is actually helping us in Afghanistan, allowing us to free up assets to fight Al Qaida where they are concentrated, IN IRAQ!!

I get so SICK of the churlish and banal talking points that these Dems seem stuck on!

Morgan

Unknown said...

Well done, z. Don't you love how he's setting himself up to take credit for every good idea around? The sure mark of someone with no particular ideas of his own (except of course his own self-aggrandizement and an 'I'll-show'em' kind of desire to get to the top).
You said And, I guess your idea of supporting Iraq's refugees is bringing them all to California, RIGHT?

Naturally. And all over the U.S. In fact, I'm sure Obama envisions a complete 'change' as he's been saying, in many areas. The new 'changed' America might be unrecognizable.

Gayle said...

I mean, if it WAS 'for OIL", why aren't we ROLLING in it?" LOL, Z! You say "Help me out here." Hon, you don't need any help. This is a great assessment of Obama's idiotic speech. Kudos! :)

EDGE said...

Z,

Ya' think Obama's gonna win the thing or will McCain pull it out?

Z said...

I don't know, Edge...McCain seems to be doing ALL he can to LOSE this thing and I just do NOT get it.

Today,he's apparently gone into a Black liberal group and praised Obama. (Mr Z just let me know, I have to go watch the news...and puke if need be..)
He goes to La Raza and sucks up, too.

If Conservatives don't get a STRONG Conservative who won't run and hide like Bush does so frequently, letting us all down, we won't ever win again. I think even Dems would sit up and listen if mcCain could possibly talk like Reagan did; GIVE US THE REAL FACTS (don't let the media lies about global climate change and stem cell, etc.etc. rule!), and TELL US HOW A GOOD CONSERVATIVE WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEMS!!! but, noooo..

McCain's counting on our votes because Obama's so liberal; what he's forgetting is so many Reps who won't vote for him if he keeps going to La Raza, etc. He's playing it so wrong ... he needs new handlers, THAT IS FOR SURE.

Anonymous said...

Ever since the lovel
y Michelle appeared on the View, and tried to show America her warm human fun-loving side, all I can think of when I see Obama is loud snoring and smoker's halitosis.

Thanks to his dear wife Obama has become The POSTER CHILD for BAD BREATH.

! FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Z you said it SOOOO much more diplomatically than I would have! What kinda RETARD Republican goes and asks La Raza to "trust him"?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What am I missing here? Help me out. Is there a more radical OR racist group than La Raza? Oy!

Morgan

Anonymous said...

Christopher Hitchens on the utter WITLESSNESS of Obama's response to The New Yorker Cover Cartoon. (New Yorkers, themselves, knew all along it was a PRO-OBAMA joke item, but BooSayNo didn't get it.)





Christopher Hitchens on the Barack Obama Cartoon Controversy


By Christopher Hitchens 15/07/2008


Satire, according to Jonathan Swift, is "a mirror wherein every man will commonly discern every face but his own". The New Yorker’s cartoon of Barack Obama and his lady wife, according to its editor David Remnick, "takes a lot of distortions, lies and misconceptions about the Obamas and puts a mirror up to them to show them for what they are."


Swift’s satire on satire could hardly have been better, er, illustrated. The cartoon, by veteran satirist Barry Blitt, omitted no detail in showing the Obamas kitted out as a combo of Muslim and Black Panther, with a photo of Osama bin Laden on the Oval Office wall and the Stars and Stripes smouldering in the grate. Within hours, even Senator Obama’s Republican revival was heading for the moral high ground and denouncing the cover as "offensive".


Ludicrous as it might seem to have John McCain enlisted as an art critic, and obvious as it should be that the New Yorker would never do anything deliberately to hurt the Democratic nominee, it remains the case that a Newsweek poll has just found 12 per cent of voters believing that Obama is a practicing Muslim and another 12 per cent (possibly the same 12 per cent) convinced that he used a Koran for his swearing-in ceremony at the United States Senate. These are of course exactly the sort of people who do NOT read the New Yorker, or go in very much for the ironic and the satirical, so that as usual the aesthetic effort is somewhat lost on what ought to be its target audience.


Instead, you have sophisticates in the metropolis laughing at a portrayal of the fears of the lowly white hicks. This set-up could itself be the subject of a satire, but probably at some other time and in some other magazine. Mr Blitt himself could hardly have been more anxiously literal, contacting the liberal "Huffington Post" blog to assure them that "depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness it is". Let us by all means be certain that there is no ambiguity about our satires.


If reassurance is what was wanted, it would have been nice to hear Barack Obama agreeing with the New Yorker’s people that the cover was (a) a joke and (b) a pro-Obama joke and then adding (c) that he and his wife "got" the said joke. No such luck! A statement of extreme lugubriousness from Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton announced that "most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive – and we agree". So in other words, the Obama team disagrees strongly with those readers who DON’T see it as tasteless and inoffensive, as well as those who interpret it as an attempt to draw the sting from a whispering campaign against Obama. Take that, you broad-minded and humorous rabble! Satire can do no more.


- Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair


Contributed by FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Thanks FT. Hitchens is BRILLIANT, unless of course he's talking about the Almighty.:-)

He and Rush are spot on about this cartoon. Boy oh boy has Obama screwed the pooch with his reaction. If he weren't so damned thin-skinned he would have laughed it off and said, "my wife can't even shoot straight. So that CAN'T be us!" Or something like that. Humor is missing on the left.

Morgan

CJ said...

I thought the New Yorker cover backfired badly myself, sophistication lost on the rest of the country. So lost it's even lost on Obama. Too close to reality apparently. We should be cheering, thanking the New Yorker for putting that image in the public mind.

Anonymous said...

The ineptness of our leaders in the development and execution of foreign policy makes me long for the Nixon/Kissinger era.

Z said...

FJ...in comparison, it makes me long for the era of LEAVE IT TO BEAVER