The Spectacle Blog
The Washington Post runs a devastating editorial against Obama’s current position on Iraq. That’s right, an editorial, not an op-ed. The editorial begins with a point that I’ve been meaning to make for awhile:
Barack Obama yesterday accused President Bush and
Sen. John McCain of rigidity on Iraq: “They said we couldn’t leave
when violence was up, they say we can’t leave when violence is
down.” Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish consistency. Early
last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate
proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in
slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest
level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After
hinting earlier this month that he might “refine” his Iraq strategy
after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama
appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month
timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes
in Iraq.
This is key. One of the leading arguments against the surge at the
time, one advanced by Obama and many other war opponents, was that
the reason we couldn’t send more troops was that it wouldn’t help,
essentially, that we shouldn’t be squandering more blood and
treasure on a lost cause.
In October of 2006, Obama said, “Given the deteriorating situation, it is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we’ve been in right now” Last January, when President Bush announced the strategy, Obama said, “I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.” He also said, “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
Obama was completely wrong. He won’t admit it. He won’t alter his policy now that the facts on the ground have changed. And yesterday, he had the gall to speak from a lectern with the slogan “Judgment to Lead.”
While the Post editorial board is more sympathetic to the war than, say, the NY Times, it isn’t exactly the Wall Street Journal either. The fact that they are starting to come down so hard on Obama for this is a sign that he isn’t wearing well.
View all comments (2) | Leave a comment
Related Blog Posts
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2008/07/16/obama-the-intransigent
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
