Not A Dimes Worth Of Difference On War
Charles Krauthammer, is saying essentially the same things I said in this post, which is that Obama, the guy who was supposed to be different, is not unlike any other recent Democratic nominee. He ran to the far left during the primary, and now he is moving right in the general, not just in rhetoric, but in actual ideas and policy. Same old, same old.
But Krauthammer goes a step further, pointing out that Obama is not only flip-flopping on domestic issues, but also foreign policy, specifically the war.
Iraq. The reversal is coming, and soon.
Two weeks ago, I predicted that by Election Day Obama will have erased all meaningful differences with McCain on withdrawal from Iraq. I underestimated Obama’s cynicism. He will make the move much sooner. He will use his upcoming Iraq trip to finally acknowledge the remarkable improvements on the ground and to formally abandon his primary season commitment to a fixed 16-month timetable for removal of all combat troops.
The shift has already begun. Yesterday, he said that his “original position” on withdrawal has always been that “we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable.” And that “when I go to Iraq . . . I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”
He hasn’t even gone to Iraq and the flip is almost complete. All that’s left to say is that the 16-month time frame remains his goal but that he will, of course, take into account the situation on the ground and the recommendation of his generals in deciding whether the withdrawal is to occur later or even sooner.
Done.
People like William, Tgirsch, Jeffraham Prestonian, and H. B. Keates (Reason over Religion), and other similar types that spend hours in front of their computers looking for dirt on Republicans, Christians, capitalists, and military men, seem to live in an alternate universe, a place far far away from what we like to call reality. I have said it many times, and I will say it again. If Al Gore had won in 2000, we would have still gone into Iraq. Also, if Kerry had won in 2004, we would still be in Iraq today. The only difference is, we would currently have the Democrats behind the war effort, instead of sabotaging it. Just look at what Kerry was proposing in 2004. In spite of his “wrong war, wrong place, wrong time” rhetoric, he was proposing the exact same Iraq policy that Bush was. As for Gore, just go back and read the things he and other prominent Democrats were saying prior to the war.
One would have to be a blithering idiot to assume that Gore would have kept us out of Iraq, or that Kerry would have brought the boys home. One would also have to be a blithering idiot to think that there is any semblance of an anti-war movement in this country right now. There isn’t and there never has been. The Obama campaign, just like the Kerry campaign, knows this. They know that the only ones who are really anti-war are the crazies, and there isn’t really very many of them. I attended the Bonnaroo music festival last year and heard lots of good hippie music, but I can’t remember seeing one single person protesting. I maybe saw one anti-war t-shirt.
This is a center right country, and it is not made up of a bunch of pacifists. Americans don’t like losing wars. The smart Democrats always knew that feeding the anti-war crazies would raise them lots of money during the primaries, but that in order to win the general, they were going to have to piss those people off.
Get ready to be pissed off, you bunch of bedwetters. I wonder how you all are going to handle it though. I mean, we Republicans know our guy stinks. There is no cult of personality on our side. You guys though, are practically choking your chickens to the sound of Baracky’s voice. People are fainting, like teenage girls at an Elvis concert. What will those folks do when they find out that Barack has been lying to them all of this time? Perhaps they will retreat into more denial. Perhaps they will go become even more insane.
There is a difference, one example being that Obama understands that there can not be a peaceful long term occupation of the Middle East in the same sense as Korea and Germany. He also understands that there is no such thing as “safe nuclear weapons.”
Do you have any evidence to support that claim?
Hard to believe that the over 42% of Americans, including some very prominent non-liberals, that said they favor impeachment proceedings are all crazy.
Polls, shmolls. If there was an impeachment movement of any sort, Bush would be impeached. If there was an anti-war movement of any sort, the Dem Congress would not have just voted to extend funding. The war would be over. If 2006 was a referendum on the war, the thing would be over now.
No I don’t have evidence. There is no evidence. It’s an opinion, you knucklehead, an opinion based on the Clinton/Gore administration’s policies, and statements about Hussein, WMD’s, and regime change, specifically statements from Gore himself.
At this point in the game, it is pretty amazing that you believe any stance or position that Obama holds.
I’d be interested in hearing what statements Gore made that specifically would give any indication that a Gore administration would have necessarily undertaken a non-UN action in Iraq.
As far as the Congress goes, we’ll see what happens when the Republicans no longer hold the veto power. (Even Krauthammer cedes in his article that that is a virtual certainty). There will be some changes. Granted, I can’t say I know for certain they will be for the better, but like the majority of Americans I am not seeing how they could be much worse at this point, other than nuclear war which is a very real possibility. Of course, end times fanatics think that is a fine option, which is one extremely valid reason to loathe religious influence on public policy.
For all intents and purposes we are bankrupt, in more ways than one. It would be a grave error to continue to desperately try to use military might and currency manipulation to maintain our status as world rulers the way the British did, which spawned a world wide depression followed by the most devastating global conflict in history, culminating in the violent introduction of the nuclear age.
Essentially the choice is to escalate the war, or rejoin the international community with a newfound sense of humility and a less greedy disposition towards world resources. I think that choice is reasonably well represented in our two candidates for president, despite their individual flaws.
Unfortunately, it may be impossible to repair the damage done by the Bush administration. I won’t say they are necessarily responsible for everything that is wrong with America, but they did just about everything they could to push us over the cliff. At some point, historical forces take over.