Obama's Iraq Dilemma is not as bad as Hillary's would have been!
|
|
Comments |
Mail to a Friend
Categories: Action Alerts, Budget Priorities, Honest and Ethical Government, Foreign Policy, National Security, Media Accountability, Peace and Armed Conflict, Social Justice, Religion, Humor & Sarcasm, African-American Issues, Faith and Religion, Women's Issues, News, Front Page
Categories: Action Alerts, Budget Priorities, Honest and Ethical Government, Foreign Policy, National Security, Media Accountability, Peace and Armed Conflict, Social Justice, Religion, Humor & Sarcasm, African-American Issues, Faith and Religion, Women's Issues, News, Front Page
Obama's Iraq Dilemma - The Stand That Obama Can't Fudge
By E. J. Dionne Jr. Washington Post
Monday, July 7, 2008; A13
EXERPTS (LINKS TO SOURCE TO BE FOUND IN COMMENTS SECTION)
Posted by Bobby Hanafin
Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired
"When a candidate calls a second news conference to say the same thing he thought he said at the first one, you know he knows he has a problem."
With that lead in, Washington Post some OP/editorial commenter, I never heard of throws out a pun about Republican efforts to trap Obama in a Catch 22 on Iraq that they hope will either cost him votes or degrade any trust in swing voters that Obama would seriously end the Iraq War, if all "appears" to be going well with what could become an EXTENDED SURGE.
Read on.
The opinionated (sound like me) Washington Post commenator intends to achieve what the mainstream media has made an art - INSTIGATION.
Frankly, sometimes instigation is a good thing, and sometimes NOT depending on the ulterior motive of the correspondent or editorial board.
Dionne Junior's instigation goes something link this, "Barack Obama's twin (I believe he meant to say back to back) news conferences last week in Fargo, N.D. indicates he is in trouble. (Drop Flip Flop Hint)
At his first news conference, Obama promised to do a "thorough assessment" of his Iraq policy in his coming visit there and "continue to gather information" to "make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable."
However, one cannot achieve instigation without clarify what it is you are instigating:
"You might ask: What's wrong with that? A commander in chief willing to adjust his view to facts and realities should be a refreshing idea," says Junior.
Then, of course comes the punch line:
"But when news reports suggested Obama was backing away from his commitment to withdrawing troops from Iraq in 16 months, Obama's lieutenants no doubt heard echoes of those cries of "flip-flop" that rocked the 2004 Republican National Convention and proved devastating to John Kerry." (INSTIGATION PHASE ONE ACCOMPLISHED)
So out Obama came again to reiterate (I believe Junior means clarify) his time line [for withdrawal of American troops from Iraqnam].
"Apparently, I wasn't clear enough this morning on my position with respect to the war in Iraq," Obama said.
"I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in [as Commander-In-Chief], and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war -- responsibly, deliberately, but decisively."
Now, if one were a half decent instigator, even that comment could be spun to be viewed as a flip-flop, what I hope Presidential hopeful Obama meant to say was that once I've appointed a Joint Chiefs of Staff, I could trust to be just as loyal to me as they would be to former President Bush, then I will give them a new mission, and that is end this war within 16 months. The problem our military family sees with this is that IF President elect Obama calls in G.W. Bush's Joint Chief's of Staff, and gives them once again a vague mission in such vague terms, they are going to drag their feet in much the same way they would loyally serve John McCain. If you doubt that the senior military leadership has no partisan political loyalties that lean right-wing, you only need look at General P's blind loyalty to Bush.
"The unsteady moment suggested that Obama has not figured out how to slip the trap John McCain's campaign is trying to set for him. As Michael Cooper and Jeff Zeleny shrewdly put it in the New York Times, Republicans want to place Obama "in the political equivalent of a double bind: [impolite terms damn if he does and damn if he does not] painting him as impervious to the changing reality on the ground if he sticks to his plan, and as a flip-flopper if he alters it to reflect changing circumstances."
The flip-flop charge may be of limited use to the GOP this year because McCain has changed his own positions rather promiscuously on matters such as taxes and offshore drilling. Even on Iraq, one of McCain's signature issues, the Straight Talker has shifted his emphasis.
At the beginning of the year, McCain famously said he was willing to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years, "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."[say what? how many Americans killed, wounded, or harmed is either Obama or McCain ready to accept, because the American voter appears to be somewhat willing to accept TOO MANY]
But in May, McCain promised that America would have "welcomed home most of the servicemen and women" by the end of his first term and that American troops in Iraq would not be playing "a direct combat role." [This sounds more like what someone at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) would have coached G.W. Bush to say on his third term. Promise THEM anything on Iraq, just do not deliver. What are the American Sheeple gonna do Mr. President send YOU to Iraq to lead the troops personally?]
McCain's supporters [and advisers at the AEI] will argue that, if carefully [spun], that Senator McCain's statements are consistent. But Obama's campaign makes much the same claims about his own [confusing] Iraq statements.
McCain is plainly adjusting his rhetoric to appease the clear majority of Americans who believe the Iraq war was a mistake and want it to end. [Americans are beginning to relate to and feel the burdens of WAR in economic terms that are not only unjust, inequitable to those getting tax cuts, but IMMORAL. Moreso than how many troops will die between now and November 2008]
Obama is being attentive to swing voters [THAT' US] who share his negative assessment of the war but are uncertain about how quickly American troops should be brought home [THAT'S NOT US]
NOTE: I intend doing an expose on just how much support Ron Paul has nationally that will prove more of a Republican Peace [or anti-war] threat to McCain, than even Dennis Kucinich could dream of posing to the Democratic establishment.
Yet Obama needs to be careful not to cede the high ground on Iraq. Because Obama's strongest argument for himself on foreign policy rests on his sound judgment in opposing the war from the beginning, any appearance of waffling on the issue is especially dangerous.
THAT IS ABOUT THE SMARTEST THING JUNIOR SAID THUS FAR, AND ONLY POINT I PERSONALLY DO NOT CONSIDER INSTIGATION.
Republicans are pressing Obama on Iraq because they know that any new moves he makes will be interpreted, fairly or not, as a change in position and that this will hurt him with two groups: the antiwar base of the Democratic Party and independent voters, many of whom are just tuning in to the campaign.
NOTE: Mainstream media wants YOU to AVERAGE American voter (Joe and Joesphine six pack) to believe that the anti-war movement IS the Democratic Party base. Feedback I get from THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT, and I've been part of it longer than Junior has been researching it, is that the collective WE are moreso in the Independent/Swing Voter camp than Democratic base. To question the economic cost, longevity, or how to define winning or losing is one thing TO OPENLY AND AGGRESSIVELY OPPOSE THE WRONG WAR AT THE WRONG TIME is quite something else.
More to the point, it is a fact that an INCREASING number of fiscal conservatives have joined the anti-war movement for more reasons than just wasted $$$. They foresee a growing potential for THE DRAFT.
If one takes a closer look at the left of center legislative position of the Libertarian party on THE DRAFT it is more radical than any leftist Democrat could ever be. We call for dismantling the Selective Service System in order to ensure no politician has future access to THE DRAFT.
"Painting Obama as a shameless shape-shifter is a way for his opponents to dull the enthusiasm (and inhibit the campaign contributions) of the war's staunchest foes."
Here again mainstream media has it WRONG. The war's staunchest foes ARE NOT contributing to political campaigns. Leadership of THE REAL ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT put out marching orders to our rank and file to NOT donate any money to ANY political candidate that could instead be better spent on THOSE WHO WE RELATE TO MOST - VETERANS AND MILITARY FAMILIES.
And if this image stuck, [I for one DO NOT believe Obama can be painted into a corner unless he wants to] it could also hurt Obama among independents.
WE will vote for a hawk or a dove, but not a chameleon. Major Hanafin will salute that!
Over the past week, Obama has been crafty in the way he has sought the political middle ground. He has emphasized his "values" and touted his patriotism, his call to service and his faith, as he did Saturday at a conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. That is quite different from backing off his core promises.
Voters accept that a president may alter the details of campaign promises. What they expect is a clear sense of the direction he will take.
At this moment, voters [even Independent/Swing voters in Ohio like me] know that John McCain is far more likely than Barack Obama to continue the war in Iraq indefinitely.
Obama would be foolish to blur that distinction.
postchat@aol.com
A voice crying out in the wilderness in case you DO NOT WANT TO READ IT!
Major Hanafin's comments:
Frankly, speaking as an Independent (left of center Libertarian) swing voter in a battle ground state, especially one who resides in a Demo-plican dominated region of Ohio, there is only one way Obama (or anyone else is going to get OUR VOTE). They are going to have to prove and CONVINCE us beyond a doubt that they will (not intend but WILL) end the Iraq War and bring our troops home - NOW (however YOU wish to define NOW).
It is not Barrack Obama himself that I do not trust, thus far he has my vote, I trust not the right of center Democratic political strategist who we in the military equate to BEANCOUNTERS regardless which political party they represent. Good ole Denny White and Jerry Springer come to mind.
If one did a tally of every pundit, every political strategist, and every mover and shaker in Ohio politics at least, how many Veterans do we come up with? Ok, I give you a pass on not being able to relate to what our Ohio National Guard members and families are going through. Suffice it to say PRECIOUS FEW.
Given there is going to be a debate over IF having military experience is a qualification for being Commander-In-Chief. I'm among those Veterans and Military Retirees who are willing to give young Obama a pass on not having military experience of any kind, heck he has access to political/military affairs advisers out the ying/yang who are far more qualified than G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld ever were or will be. If John McCain is any indication of just how having military service is a qualification to loiter in the White House, his supporters tend for forget two essential ingrediants (1) they killed that ideal ala John Kerry, and (2) the vast majority of American voters (99% compared to American Veterans 1 percent or so. DO NOT HAVE NOR DESIRE MILITAYR EXPERIENCE - REGARDLESS WHICH SIDE OF OLD GLORY THEY ARE WAVING. However, what I cannot give Obama a pass on is lacking the sensitivity or intelligence to ignore the polls and sentiments of a minority of Americans and not plain see THAT THE IRAQ WAR COSTS TOO MUCH.
There isn't a fiscal conservative voting for Ron Paul in the nation who would not disagree with me even IF they would never vote for Barrack Obama. It IS the shear overall and growing costs of the war that will END THE IRAQ WAR. Not John McCain or Barrack Obama. In fact, only two factions can END THE IRAQ WAR, (1) those fighting and dying in it, and (2) the rest of us who even if we cannot relate to the ever increasing body count CAN RELATE to the cost of gas and other economic necessities. THE SOONER AMERICANS CAN RELATE THE ECOMONIC COSTS OF IRAQ AS THE ROOT OF ALL OUR ECONOMIC ILLS = THE FASTER THE IRAQ WAR ENDS.
Look at it another way, from the point of view of the Islamic people. Do you seriously believe that there is one, tell me ONE, Arab nation who is a member of OPEC who would not like to patiently see American waste all it's wealth and military clout on one or two nations in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world as WE become little more than a large arrogant third world country?
That's not even considering the Chinese, North Koreans, or any other potential security threat. Before America (that's US) decides to allow our government leaders (and we DID) to go on another misguided international adventure our of arrogance and ignorance, WE THE PEOPLE meaning ALL OF US must be fully committed, including giving up our own life's blood, not some other families kid, TO WIN.]
WARNING to the Chinese or any other aspirant to take our place on the world stage: A bankrupt America in both terms of economy and soul would frankly be a more dangerous America than the Bush administration [or National Socialism] could ever dream up.
Until, we the people who just celebrated Independence Day can truly commit to winning and whatever it takes to win. Victory or Peace with Honor, or whatever will be about as much a Disneyland Fantasy as this past July 4th was.
Bobby Hanafin
Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired (69-94)
By E. J. Dionne Jr. Washington Post
Monday, July 7, 2008; A13
EXERPTS (LINKS TO SOURCE TO BE FOUND IN COMMENTS SECTION)
Posted by Bobby Hanafin
Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired
"When a candidate calls a second news conference to say the same thing he thought he said at the first one, you know he knows he has a problem."
With that lead in, Washington Post some OP/editorial commenter, I never heard of throws out a pun about Republican efforts to trap Obama in a Catch 22 on Iraq that they hope will either cost him votes or degrade any trust in swing voters that Obama would seriously end the Iraq War, if all "appears" to be going well with what could become an EXTENDED SURGE.
Read on.
The opinionated (sound like me) Washington Post commenator intends to achieve what the mainstream media has made an art - INSTIGATION.
Frankly, sometimes instigation is a good thing, and sometimes NOT depending on the ulterior motive of the correspondent or editorial board.
Dionne Junior's instigation goes something link this, "Barack Obama's twin (I believe he meant to say back to back) news conferences last week in Fargo, N.D. indicates he is in trouble. (Drop Flip Flop Hint)
At his first news conference, Obama promised to do a "thorough assessment" of his Iraq policy in his coming visit there and "continue to gather information" to "make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable."
However, one cannot achieve instigation without clarify what it is you are instigating:
"You might ask: What's wrong with that? A commander in chief willing to adjust his view to facts and realities should be a refreshing idea," says Junior.
Then, of course comes the punch line:
"But when news reports suggested Obama was backing away from his commitment to withdrawing troops from Iraq in 16 months, Obama's lieutenants no doubt heard echoes of those cries of "flip-flop" that rocked the 2004 Republican National Convention and proved devastating to John Kerry." (INSTIGATION PHASE ONE ACCOMPLISHED)
So out Obama came again to reiterate (I believe Junior means clarify) his time line [for withdrawal of American troops from Iraqnam].
"Apparently, I wasn't clear enough this morning on my position with respect to the war in Iraq," Obama said.
"I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in [as Commander-In-Chief], and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war -- responsibly, deliberately, but decisively."
Now, if one were a half decent instigator, even that comment could be spun to be viewed as a flip-flop, what I hope Presidential hopeful Obama meant to say was that once I've appointed a Joint Chiefs of Staff, I could trust to be just as loyal to me as they would be to former President Bush, then I will give them a new mission, and that is end this war within 16 months. The problem our military family sees with this is that IF President elect Obama calls in G.W. Bush's Joint Chief's of Staff, and gives them once again a vague mission in such vague terms, they are going to drag their feet in much the same way they would loyally serve John McCain. If you doubt that the senior military leadership has no partisan political loyalties that lean right-wing, you only need look at General P's blind loyalty to Bush.
"The unsteady moment suggested that Obama has not figured out how to slip the trap John McCain's campaign is trying to set for him. As Michael Cooper and Jeff Zeleny shrewdly put it in the New York Times, Republicans want to place Obama "in the political equivalent of a double bind: [impolite terms damn if he does and damn if he does not] painting him as impervious to the changing reality on the ground if he sticks to his plan, and as a flip-flopper if he alters it to reflect changing circumstances."
The flip-flop charge may be of limited use to the GOP this year because McCain has changed his own positions rather promiscuously on matters such as taxes and offshore drilling. Even on Iraq, one of McCain's signature issues, the Straight Talker has shifted his emphasis.
At the beginning of the year, McCain famously said he was willing to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years, "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."[say what? how many Americans killed, wounded, or harmed is either Obama or McCain ready to accept, because the American voter appears to be somewhat willing to accept TOO MANY]
But in May, McCain promised that America would have "welcomed home most of the servicemen and women" by the end of his first term and that American troops in Iraq would not be playing "a direct combat role." [This sounds more like what someone at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) would have coached G.W. Bush to say on his third term. Promise THEM anything on Iraq, just do not deliver. What are the American Sheeple gonna do Mr. President send YOU to Iraq to lead the troops personally?]
McCain's supporters [and advisers at the AEI] will argue that, if carefully [spun], that Senator McCain's statements are consistent. But Obama's campaign makes much the same claims about his own [confusing] Iraq statements.
McCain is plainly adjusting his rhetoric to appease the clear majority of Americans who believe the Iraq war was a mistake and want it to end. [Americans are beginning to relate to and feel the burdens of WAR in economic terms that are not only unjust, inequitable to those getting tax cuts, but IMMORAL. Moreso than how many troops will die between now and November 2008]
Obama is being attentive to swing voters [THAT' US] who share his negative assessment of the war but are uncertain about how quickly American troops should be brought home [THAT'S NOT US]
NOTE: I intend doing an expose on just how much support Ron Paul has nationally that will prove more of a Republican Peace [or anti-war] threat to McCain, than even Dennis Kucinich could dream of posing to the Democratic establishment.
Yet Obama needs to be careful not to cede the high ground on Iraq. Because Obama's strongest argument for himself on foreign policy rests on his sound judgment in opposing the war from the beginning, any appearance of waffling on the issue is especially dangerous.
THAT IS ABOUT THE SMARTEST THING JUNIOR SAID THUS FAR, AND ONLY POINT I PERSONALLY DO NOT CONSIDER INSTIGATION.
Republicans are pressing Obama on Iraq because they know that any new moves he makes will be interpreted, fairly or not, as a change in position and that this will hurt him with two groups: the antiwar base of the Democratic Party and independent voters, many of whom are just tuning in to the campaign.
NOTE: Mainstream media wants YOU to AVERAGE American voter (Joe and Joesphine six pack) to believe that the anti-war movement IS the Democratic Party base. Feedback I get from THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT, and I've been part of it longer than Junior has been researching it, is that the collective WE are moreso in the Independent/Swing Voter camp than Democratic base. To question the economic cost, longevity, or how to define winning or losing is one thing TO OPENLY AND AGGRESSIVELY OPPOSE THE WRONG WAR AT THE WRONG TIME is quite something else.
More to the point, it is a fact that an INCREASING number of fiscal conservatives have joined the anti-war movement for more reasons than just wasted $$$. They foresee a growing potential for THE DRAFT.
If one takes a closer look at the left of center legislative position of the Libertarian party on THE DRAFT it is more radical than any leftist Democrat could ever be. We call for dismantling the Selective Service System in order to ensure no politician has future access to THE DRAFT.
"Painting Obama as a shameless shape-shifter is a way for his opponents to dull the enthusiasm (and inhibit the campaign contributions) of the war's staunchest foes."
Here again mainstream media has it WRONG. The war's staunchest foes ARE NOT contributing to political campaigns. Leadership of THE REAL ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT put out marching orders to our rank and file to NOT donate any money to ANY political candidate that could instead be better spent on THOSE WHO WE RELATE TO MOST - VETERANS AND MILITARY FAMILIES.
And if this image stuck, [I for one DO NOT believe Obama can be painted into a corner unless he wants to] it could also hurt Obama among independents.
WE will vote for a hawk or a dove, but not a chameleon. Major Hanafin will salute that!
Over the past week, Obama has been crafty in the way he has sought the political middle ground. He has emphasized his "values" and touted his patriotism, his call to service and his faith, as he did Saturday at a conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. That is quite different from backing off his core promises.
Voters accept that a president may alter the details of campaign promises. What they expect is a clear sense of the direction he will take.
At this moment, voters [even Independent/Swing voters in Ohio like me] know that John McCain is far more likely than Barack Obama to continue the war in Iraq indefinitely.
Obama would be foolish to blur that distinction.
postchat@aol.com
A voice crying out in the wilderness in case you DO NOT WANT TO READ IT!
Major Hanafin's comments:
Frankly, speaking as an Independent (left of center Libertarian) swing voter in a battle ground state, especially one who resides in a Demo-plican dominated region of Ohio, there is only one way Obama (or anyone else is going to get OUR VOTE). They are going to have to prove and CONVINCE us beyond a doubt that they will (not intend but WILL) end the Iraq War and bring our troops home - NOW (however YOU wish to define NOW).
It is not Barrack Obama himself that I do not trust, thus far he has my vote, I trust not the right of center Democratic political strategist who we in the military equate to BEANCOUNTERS regardless which political party they represent. Good ole Denny White and Jerry Springer come to mind.
If one did a tally of every pundit, every political strategist, and every mover and shaker in Ohio politics at least, how many Veterans do we come up with? Ok, I give you a pass on not being able to relate to what our Ohio National Guard members and families are going through. Suffice it to say PRECIOUS FEW.
Given there is going to be a debate over IF having military experience is a qualification for being Commander-In-Chief. I'm among those Veterans and Military Retirees who are willing to give young Obama a pass on not having military experience of any kind, heck he has access to political/military affairs advisers out the ying/yang who are far more qualified than G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld ever were or will be. If John McCain is any indication of just how having military service is a qualification to loiter in the White House, his supporters tend for forget two essential ingrediants (1) they killed that ideal ala John Kerry, and (2) the vast majority of American voters (99% compared to American Veterans 1 percent or so. DO NOT HAVE NOR DESIRE MILITAYR EXPERIENCE - REGARDLESS WHICH SIDE OF OLD GLORY THEY ARE WAVING. However, what I cannot give Obama a pass on is lacking the sensitivity or intelligence to ignore the polls and sentiments of a minority of Americans and not plain see THAT THE IRAQ WAR COSTS TOO MUCH.
There isn't a fiscal conservative voting for Ron Paul in the nation who would not disagree with me even IF they would never vote for Barrack Obama. It IS the shear overall and growing costs of the war that will END THE IRAQ WAR. Not John McCain or Barrack Obama. In fact, only two factions can END THE IRAQ WAR, (1) those fighting and dying in it, and (2) the rest of us who even if we cannot relate to the ever increasing body count CAN RELATE to the cost of gas and other economic necessities. THE SOONER AMERICANS CAN RELATE THE ECOMONIC COSTS OF IRAQ AS THE ROOT OF ALL OUR ECONOMIC ILLS = THE FASTER THE IRAQ WAR ENDS.
Look at it another way, from the point of view of the Islamic people. Do you seriously believe that there is one, tell me ONE, Arab nation who is a member of OPEC who would not like to patiently see American waste all it's wealth and military clout on one or two nations in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world as WE become little more than a large arrogant third world country?
That's not even considering the Chinese, North Koreans, or any other potential security threat. Before America (that's US) decides to allow our government leaders (and we DID) to go on another misguided international adventure our of arrogance and ignorance, WE THE PEOPLE meaning ALL OF US must be fully committed, including giving up our own life's blood, not some other families kid, TO WIN.]
WARNING to the Chinese or any other aspirant to take our place on the world stage: A bankrupt America in both terms of economy and soul would frankly be a more dangerous America than the Bush administration [or National Socialism] could ever dream up.
Until, we the people who just celebrated Independence Day can truly commit to winning and whatever it takes to win. Victory or Peace with Honor, or whatever will be about as much a Disneyland Fantasy as this past July 4th was.
Bobby Hanafin
Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired (69-94)
Comments are closed for this post.