Posted on 07/21/2008 5:15:38 PM PDT by Kaslin
Campaign '08: The man who opposed the surge in Iraq now wants a surge in Afghanistan. But if Barack Obama had his way, there would be no troops to be redeployed and no free Iraq to visit.
As John McCain has pointed out, and a fawning press has not, there would be no democratic Iraq to visit and no Prime Minister al-Maliki to have a photo-op with if we had listened to Obama. Instead, the jihadist victory that would have resulted would have rivaled the killing fields of Cambodia.
In January 2007, Obama introduced legislation in the Senate to have all U.S. troops out of Iraq by March of this year. If that proposal had been adopted, our troops would have been leaving, not entering, Iraq in 2007.
In other words, the surge never would have happened, much less succeeded. The jihadists would have simply set their snooze alarms and waited, and Iraq's democracy and its people would have been doomed.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
Obama can rest easy, because the Jihadists Have set their snooze alarms and are waiting, until after the election. They have been told that any violence only works against their favored candidate. Arab leaders and the MSM will combine to polish Obama's image as a uniter and a statesman. "Significant Progress" will be made in US/Arab relations. All will be sweetness and light, such that even an idiot with no foreign policy experience, from a party that has no foreign policy at all except to cut and run, can still be seen to triumph in the ME. We can all rest easy, ignore Iraq and vote for our domestic and economic "creature comforts", knowing Iraq is a non-issue.
Guaranteed, there will be no attacks on Obama overseas at this time. After the election, however, the honeymoon is over.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Iraq will be having elections this fall, before ours IIRC. I wonder if the (recently) free Iraqi press will ask Obama who he favors to lead their country? Not that they need to. Obama’s choice for who should be leading Iraq, now and into the future, is a matter of record, Congressional Record that is. Plus he’s bragged about his choice many times on the campaign trail. He voted to keep Saddam as President of Iraq for life when he voted against the war.
That's a good way of putting it. I'm going to remember that: Obama voted to keep Saddam president!
Nevertheless, this Bambi World Tour is turning out to be the farce that the headline proclaims it. We are presented with the spectacle of a candidate who (1) insists that opposing the surge was correct, (2) insists that a victorious withdrawal is the same thing as his timetable for defeat, (3) recommends the same policy in Afghanistan that he "rightly" opposed in Iraq that - mirabile dictu! - just happened to win, and (4) does so under the risible and transparent illusion that he is anything but an ignorant, smooth-talking punk from Chicago who thinks he can bluster through his own patent idiocy. Oh, I beg your pardon, he's the American President - well, not yet. There is that inconvenient formality of the unwashed voting as the media have already concluded, but we will, won't we? Oh, wait, he's not actually President yet, but merely the Democratic candidate. Oh, wait, he's not even that yet, but a smooth-talking punk from Chicago...but there I repeat myself.
Do we insist on rational truth? Have you no white guilt?
Zero possumus!
Ever invoke a metaphor you were really, really sorry about? I'll go away now... ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.