History, Defeatism, and Barack Obama
John McCain is stepping up his strong criticism of Obama’s opportunistic dishonesty on Iraq. Frankly, he deserves it. Clearly, he would rather see genocide and defeat than admit to having been wrong. I imagine Hillary Clinton is especially disgusted; she was responsible on Iraq all along, and Obama used that against her to win his party’s nomination.
There’s lots to like about Barack Obama, but his conduct regarding the war and our troops has been irresponsible and opportunistic–at best.
Subscribe to Dean's World by Email
9 comments
In just the last TWO WEEKS, McCain’s positions have gone like this:
1. Obama wanting troops to come back in a matter of less than 2 years is irresponsible. The Iraqi people and generals have to make that call. If Obama would just visit Iraq and see the conditions on the ground, he’d find that he’s wrong.
2. How dare Obama go abroad and visit Iraq? And the Iraiq PM didn’t say what he said about agreeing with Obama.
3. Oh wait, fine, he did, but I know better than him what he wants.
4. Anyway, Obama opposed the surge. But the surge isn’t really the surge, it’s everything good that ever happened in Iraq even before the surge, and opposing the surge or not is all that matters going forward, even though it’s now over.
5. Wait, wait: I can bring the troops home faster than Obama can!
6. Maliki’s 16 month timetable to bring the troops home, which I endorse, is better than Obama’s 16 month timetable!
That’s not exactly my idea of sensible criticism, or standing firm.
And then there’ this:
"Clearly, he would rather see genocide and defeat than admit to having been wrong."
Yes, because 16 months vs. 16 months is definately a matter over which it makes sense to accuse someone of wanting to see people slaughtered.
Like I said over on my blog, I think I have a line about dishonest spinning when it comes to misrepresenting people’s policy positions to the degree that you start insisting that they endorse genocide. I’m just not sure what to do or think yet about people desperate enough to cross it.
Bad’s last blog post..The Press is at Fault for McCain Campaign’s Funk? Absurd.
Bad, you leave out some inconvenient details:
1) the situation has changed since Obama first started saying 16 months. It may be reasonable now, if we’re willing to leave a few tens of billions of dollars worth of hardware behind, but it wasn’t at the time.
2) Obama has said that even knowing what we know now, he wouldn’t have supported the surge.
3) The Surge was not, in fact, what the media has characterized it as. We’ve been saying that here the whole time. It’s a change of stance which required more troops to fully implement it.
Before you go accusing people of dishonest spinning, you might take a look at yourself.
[…] reference to his half-black skin to remind us what bigots we all are to criticize him. In private, this comment from a Progressive at Dean’s World gives us a view of the blow-back, and it’s not […]
Bad: You also leave out the fact that Obama said, quite clearly, that even if there was genocide in Iraq we should leave, mentioning that there were genocides going on in other places like Darfur and we weren’t sending our military there, so why should it be our responsibility in Iraq?
Also, when and where exactly did Maliki, or any elected official in Iraq, endorse a 16 month timetable? I call shenanigans, Maliki et. al. proposed a timeline that would have us still in Iraq at least until 2012 or 2013, and he made it clear it might have to be longer.
Dishman’s right, you’re leaving out inconvenient facts here to reach your conclusions.
"1) the situation has changed since Obama first started saying 16 months. It may be reasonable now, if we’re willing to leave a few tens of billions of dollars worth of hardware behind, but it wasn’t at the time."
Oh, it may be reasonable now? But it was sheer insanity two weeks ago! What happened?
And good grief, what a BS point that equipment thing is. Seriously?
"Obama has said that even knowing what we know now, he wouldn’t have supported the surge."
And that’s a darn good reason to vote or note vote for him, as McCain has every right to argue.
But bear in mind that the surge was described, even by its supporters, as a tactical gamble. And it was itself essentially one of a very long string of promises about a new policy, one after the other, all of which formed what seemed like a neverending excuse for little change strategically. Which makes a lot of the focus on it as somehow the defining issue of the war look rather overblown.
"The Surge was not, in fact, what the media has characterized it as. We’ve been saying that here the whole time. It’s a change of stance which required more troops to fully implement it."
Pure dissembling. Regardless of how you thought of the surge, this doesn’t make any sense at all of McCain’s statements about his support, the surges effects, and Obama’s opposition, all of which are knowingly based on the definition of the surge that the rest of the world was using.
"You also leave out the fact that Obama said, quite clearly, that even if there was genocide in Iraq we should leave, mentioning that there were genocides going on in other places like Darfur and we weren’t sending our military there, so why should it be our responsibility in Iraq?"
It’s astonishing to hear someone use words like "quite clearly" when it is apparent that the only place they read those words was in apparently single snippets from a press release.
What did Obama actually say in the interview in question? What was his reasoning? What is, in fact, his position on genocide as a foriegn policy concern.
Question: Do you know the answers to these without going and looking it up?
"I call shenanigans, Maliki et. al. proposed a timeline that would have us still in Iraq at least until 2012 or 2013, and he made it clear it might have to be longer."
Maliki said, by name, that Obama’s plan was the most reasonable and better understood the reality of the situation. Then his spokesman, the very same guy that our government put out a press release falsely calling Maliki’s statements a "translation error" said that he hoped we would be out "by 2010." Who is leaving reality out of the discussion again? Heck, even McCain has basically shifted so that he’s no longer saying that 16 months is uneqivocally too soon.
Bad’s last blog post..The Press is at Fault for McCain Campaign’s Funk? Absurd.
"Bad" is giving us all a lesson in how bravely to defend an indefensible position for a candidate, however unworthy that candidate may be of the sacrifice. However, "bad," I might advise you not to use the words "Pure dissembling," since it describes so clearly what you’re doing that it reminds the reader not to take you seriously.
The facts are accurate as stated by McCain, and everybody who follows the news knows it. Obama advised retreat during the entire period of the war, and even bragged about the fact publicly during the primary season. This is on tape, and indisputable. McCain advised changes in strategy starting in 2004, changes which, while not precisely what was done, at least had some of the characteristics of the strategy that ended up working. For McCain to take some credit for advising something that eventually worked is appropriate, though we ought not to get carried away. For Obama to claim that his advise has been vindicated by Maliki’s comments is simply outrageous; you may as well say, at 3:25 PM, that a broken clock stuck at exactly 3:25 is vindicated by the fact that it was correct at that particular moment.
In fact, if one says about ANY war "It’s time to bring our troops home," one is going to be correct at the end of the war, win or lose. Obama was completely wrong, and the Maliki "endorsement" was pure, dumb luck.
John McCain may not be the perfect candidate; I’ve never praised him much, and worked to defeat him in the Republican primaries. But Barack Obama is not only not qualified to be President, he’s not qualified to be Senator; he’s a dissembling, completely cynical, utterly inexperienced, politically radical fellow who looks good to young women and delivers prepared speeches expertly. I can understand being less than thrilled by the prospect of a McCain presidency; but I cannot accept as my intellectual equal anybody who thinks Barack Obama possesses either the character or the experience to be President, as it’s quite clear to the casual observer that he has neither.
Maliki reputiated any notion that he was endorsing Obama’s stance, said his words were mistranslated, and went out of his way post-interview to make it clear that a rigid timeline would be a bad idea. Which it would be. Read about it here.
No, Maliki did not repudiate it at all - a apokesman for him claimed that there was a mistranslation, but then Maliki himself did comment that the "shorter timeframe" was "more realistic".
The Iraqi public wants us out, and Maliki sees the writin on teh wall.
Yes, Maliki did repudiate, and claimed he was misinterpreted and taken out of context. Maliki’s proposed timelines generally have almost always involved target dates like 2012, with a lot of verbage indicating that if it has to be longer, it has to be.
The majority of the Iraqi people want us out but not until they’re sure things are stable and safe.
You must log in to post a comment.