Posted on 07/24/2008 5:28:16 AM PDT by Uncle Ralph
On Wednesday, the editors of the Washington Post wrote [emphases added]:
Mr.Obama says that because Iraq is "a distraction" from more important problems, U.S. resources devoted to it must be curtailed. Yet he also says his aim is to "succeed in leaving Iraq to a sovereign government that can take responsibility for its own future." What if Gen. Petraeus and Iraqi leaders are right that this goal is not consistent with a 16-month timetable? Will Iraq be written off because Mr. Obama does not consider it important enough -- or will the strategy be altered?
Arguably, Mr. Obama has given himself the flexibility to adopt either course. Yesterday he denied being "so rigid and stubborn that I ignore anything that happens during the course of the 16 months," though this would be more reassuring if Mr. Obama were not rigidly and stubbornly maintaining his opposition to the successful "surge" of the past 16 months ...
Damned nice of them to point that out -- But wait... there's more:
Mr. Obama's account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is "the central front" ... The United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, [but] the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves [... ! ]
Neat, isn't it -- how they let slip what they've really held all along: that Iraq actually is important enough. So the editors at the Post conclude:
If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable.
And Hallelujah! The loosened scales rained down from their eyes.
Can it last?
If we need more troops in Afghanistan, why not transfer the ones who are (STILL) in Bosnia.
Strangely, I haven’t heard B. Hussein mention the troops who are (STILL) unnecessarily stationed in Bosnia.
Who sent those troops there, anyway?
By March 2009, President Obama will have new information about Iraq and the progress made there. He will decide that 16 months is too fast to withdraw and the presstitutes will all hail our visionary leader.
This editorial is just laying the groundwork for the flip flop the WaPo already knows is coming.
Goodness. What ARE you talking about. Bubba said those troops would be home by Christmas - back in the 90's. Are you saying they're STILL there? s/
You bring up an excellent point. Should be an ad: "Mr. obamination. What timetable do you have to bring the troops home from Bosnia. They've been x-amount of years longer than planned?"
We also have a lot of troops in places like Korea and Japan. They'd need some additional training - but couldn't we draw down some of them - or just send them now to plug in some areas to free up some of out troops already up-trained for the Middle East?
Are there still troops in Okinawa? s/
The Post is in the Tank for Hillary. She has not gone away.
It's starting to look like they'll endorse McCain if Obama doesn't wise up.
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.