Posts Tagged ‘Iraq’
One of the many absurd fictions that the elite media let Obama get away with is the notion that the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is happening because Obama promised it would. Not only do Obama’s press allies let him get away with this lie, they actively take part in pushing it and always make sure to point out that The One’s rise to power was in large part due to his opposition to the war in Iraq and his dedication to ending it.
The reality, of course, is almost completely the opposite of the Obama/Democrat media machine narrative. Less than two weeks after Obamessiah’s election, the Bush administration and Iraq signed off on a Status of Forces Agreement that required U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009 and to be out of the country entirely by the end of 2011. The withdrawal was required whether Obama rode his anti-Iraq war wave to power or not. It was baked into the cake when Obama came into office. For he and his PR press cohorts to try to pass off the withdrawal as some fulfillment of campaign promises is the height of absurdity.
What makes the narrative even more ridiculous is that Bush’s troop surge, which created the conditions that make the withdrawal possible, was opposed by Obama, Biden and Hillary Clinton. Of course, it was clear well before the 08 election that the surge had worked. In a sane world, that alone should have ruined Obama’s chances of winning — he and his running mate were on the wrong side of the war, which had been the most contentious issue for at least the two preceding years. But when you’re a Democrat in the midst of an “historic” campaign, facts and reality don’t matter.
HBO has a new miniseries about Saddam Hussein called “House of Saddam” that begins airing tonight. While I can’t speak to the content of the series itself as I haven’t seen it, a “political chronology” of Saddam on HBO’s website conveniently skips over his gassing (i.e., genocide) of Kurds and deletes everything that happened between 1991 (when Saddam allowed in UN weapons inspectors) and 2002 (when Bush included Iraq in the axis of evil).
Of course, by removing this 11-year chunk of history, HBO also removes many of the numerous UN sanctions Iraq violated, which involved not cooperating with UN inspectors, as well as firing at US aircraft in the no-fly zone.
Who knows what the program itself will depict, but don’t be surprised if the genocidal maniac Hussein is humanized.
From “change” and “hope” to “big problem” and “it’s going to get worse.” That’s the change we can believe in. On today’s Meet the Pressed, Obama moaned and groaned about the economy, saying it’s going to get worse before it gets better. It sure doesn’t sound like he has much confidence in his own big-spending plans to turn things around. Instead of offering hope like he did on the campaign trail, Obama channeled Jimmy Carter’s malaise. Here’s why: Obama doesn’t really have any specific hope to offer. Sure, when he’s on the stump with his teleprompter and adoring crowds, hope is a great catchphrase that makes his followers tingle with excitement. But when he’s president-elect and faced with real, serious problems, problems that are more serious than whether he gets elected, Obama comes up empty. Reality is starting to set in for our little Obambi.
Obama also slammed the Bush administration for not moving more quickly on the economy. This is just a preview of how, during the first 6-12 months in office, the Obama team will blame everything that goes wrong on their predecessors. But where is Obama? How is he moving? His own party is chastising him for not being more assertive and he blames Bush for not being assertive? As I recall, it was Bush who came out panting and shaking, warning that if we didn’t pass a $700 billion bailout bill in 48 hours, “this sucker could go down.” It was the Bush White House that pulled together a Citigroup bailout over the period of one weekend.
In moves that will surely rankle his extremist base, Obama signalled that tax cuts for the wealthy and a 16-month deadline for Iraq troop withdrawals may not be in the offing. Of course, Obama has been shifting on Iraq for some time.
On taxes, Obama seems to be thinking out loud: “My economic team right now is examining — do we repeal that through legislation? Do we let it lapse so that, when the Bush tax cuts expire, they’re not renewed when it comes to wealthiest Americans?” He just can’t decide the best way to sneak the tax hike in during a recession because he knows it’s unpopular.
But remember when raising taxes on the “wealthiest Americans” was a cornerstone of Obama’s economic strategy, the only way to get things going again “from the ground up“? Obama indirectly admits that raising taxes is bad for the economy by dithering, and, as such, admits that his tax-raising idea is wrong.
Obambi has selected Gen. Eric Shinseki to head up the Veterans Administration because “he ‘was right’ in predicting that the U.S. will need more troops in Iraq than Rumsfeld,” according to the AP.
So, Obama – who opposed an increase in troops in Iraq – is selecting a man whom he says was right for holding the position that was opposite his own.
Of course, AP willingly misses this and instead focuses on the disagreement between Shinseki and Bush/Rumsfeld.
Ahead of tonight’s vice presidential debate, it’s useful to think about the Democratic nominee, windbag Joe Biden, alongside his novice running mate Barack Obama, rather than alongside Sarah Palin.
In the first presidential debate, Obama issued a strong indictment of John McCain, saying he was “wrong” on Iraq from the beginning:
“…at the time when the war started you said it was going to be quick and easy, you said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were; you were wrong. You said we were going to be greeted as liberators; you were wrong.”
Now, let’s take a look at the statements on Iraq in the years before the war from Obama’s running mate:
“As long as Saddam’s at the helm, there is no reasonable prospect [that] . . . any . . . inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out . . . the entirety of Saddam’s [WMD] program.” (1998)
“…the only way we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we’re going to end up having to start it alone . . . . It’s going to require guys . . . in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking Saddam down.” (2002)
“I do not believe this is a rush to war. I believe it is a march to peace and security.
. . . [Saddam Hussein] possesses chemical and biological weapons and is seeking nuclear weapons.” (2002, after his vote to go to war in Iraq)
“We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long haul; not just the day after, but the decade after.” (2002)
Not only are these statements supportive of the war, they are almost identical to claims made by the Bush administration – claims that liberals have furiously denounced as lies.
Certainly by Obama’s own logic, choosing Biden as his running mate draws Obama’s judgment into question. Obama has made his opposition to Iraq one of the centerpieces of his qualifications to be president. And yet, he chooses a man as his running mate who voted for the war and as a respected voice on foreign affairs played a role in ginning up support for the war by pushing the Bush administration’s lines of argument. So if we are to agree with Obama that John McCain shouldn’t be president in large part because of his support for the war, Obama himself is also disqualified for choosing a running mate who did the same.