Posted on 02/13/2008 6:19:15 PM PST by Ooh-Ah
...Thanks to Mr. Gates's readiness to adjust, it's more likely that President Bush's successor will inherit an Iraq that is moving slowly toward stability rather than spiraling into chaos. So it's worth asking why Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton remain so unwilling to alter their outdated and dogmatic views about the war. Both issued statements Monday denouncing Mr. Gates's statement and the proposed pause in withdrawals; both stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that the changed situation in Iraq requires a rethinking of their plans for the rapid withdrawal of all U.S. combat troops. As Mr. Gates has recognized, to mechanically yank U.S. forces from Iraq according to a timetable inspired by American domestic politics, just when the troops appear to be succeeding, would be foolhardy as well as dangerous.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
WOW-thats gonna leave a mark.
You mean that the WP actually admits that the Iraq war is turning for the better and that the surge is working and OMG that Hillary and Obama are wrong? I’m in the anti-matter universe aren’t I?
You just never know what the WaPo is up to when it says something sensible.
Partly they obviously want to deny the President any credit, but they have something else going on.
Attention Pelosi, Reid and Murtha, this is from WaPo!
The problem was Bush 1’s to solve, but the nation kicked him out before he could do what needed to be done. Clinton refused to do anything about Iraq and terrorism in general (not two different things) leaving the ever increasing terrorism problems to the next president. The democrats almost immediately demonized Bush 2 and caused any solution to the Iraqi problem to be much more extended and difficult.
We do not need leaders who will bring back the worst of the past.
Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!
If this keeps up I may have to subscribe.
isn’t strange how when the Media speaks honestly about our successs our success is compounded and our enemies are forced into more rapid retreat?
To do that, they have to have the support of the core constituencies of the Democratic Party and those groups are rabidly antiwar (OIF/OEF and GWOT). Consequently, on this subject, they will say what is necessary to keep the party’s base support. The considered approach recommended by the Washington Post (!!) cannot be entertained at this time. It would be seen as a betrayal by the party faithful.
If Obama is the winner in November, it is unlikely he would reconsider a rapid withdrawal because he has made opposing the war from the beginning a central point in his appeal for voter support. The "change you can believe in" could possibly become a nightmare for the people of Iraq.
If Clinton were to clinch the nomination and win the election, I think she might be willing to consider the situation on its merits and support a more measured draw down in force levels. But, with the apparent "uninevitability" of her getting the nomination becoming increasingly obvious, it is likely she will not get the opportunity to be the next "Decider" in the White House.
By contrast, McCain at least wants something resembling a clear cut victory. So do I. I don't particularily like him and his stands on some issues but, given the distasteful alternatives, I will vote for him.
The Post’s editorial page is more conservative on foreign policy than the rest of the paper, but this is still pretty edge-y for them.
To do that, they have to have the support of the core constituencies of the Democratic Party and those groups are rabidly antiwar (OIF/OEF and GWOT). Consequently, on this subject, they will say what is necessary to keep the party’s base support. The considered approach recommended by the Washington Post (!!) cannot be entertained at this time. It would be seen as a betrayal by the party faithful.
If Obama is the winner in November, it is unlikely he would reconsider a rapid withdrawal because he has made opposing the war from the beginning a central point in his appeal for voter support. The "change you can believe in" could possibly become a nightmare for the people of Iraq.
If Clinton were to clinch the nomination and win the election, I think she might be willing to consider the situation on its merits and support a more measured draw down in force levels. But, with the apparent "uninevitability" of her getting the nomination becoming increasingly obvious, it is likely she will not get the opportunity to be the next "Decider" in the White House.
By contrast, McCain at least wants something resembling a clear cut victory. So do I. I don't particularily like him and his stands on some issues but, given the distasteful alternatives, I will vote for him.
bttt
great article!
I will gladly vote for McCain even if it means a third tour in Iraq for me. We are winning and will win but only if McCain is the CIC!!
Worth repeating for the cut-n-run FReepers who are staying at home with their ball or voting for a Democrat this coming election.
I work on problems concerning Marine ground operations in Iraq and I have a pretty good understanding of the hazards service personnel face there on a daily basis. The example that you and all the members of the Armed Forces are providing through your selfless service in OIF/OEF and GWOT is truly inspiring.
I sort through candidates of either party according to experience. Since there is no job comparable to being President of the United States, everybody's resume is going to be lacking to some degree. But if you have had significant elective executive responsibility and handled it well that is a big plus in my book. So state governors and former state governors (the bigger the state, the better) get first consideration. We had three major candidates this year that either are or had been state governors: Richardson (D-New Mexico), Romney (R- Massachusetts), and Huckabee (R-Arkansas).
Of these, only Huckabee is still in the race, trailing McCain badly. The consensus among the pundits is that Huckabee is still in the race because he is running for the Vice President slot. Well, his conservatism sure moderates McCain's RINO tendencies and he does have that running a government experience I look for. As for the three front runners, none of them have elected executive experience (McCain's running a squadron, even a big one, doesn't compare to running even the tiniest state government). What McCain does have is a lento period of service in the Senate and some legislative accomplishments.
Both Obama and Clinton have been covertly or overtly running for president since the moment they arrived in the Senate. Obama has the star factor but I would never vote for him for the reason I gave in my first post and because he is a big "L" liberal. Clinton is well...Clinton. Whatever she has accomplished in a positive sense is tainted by the sneaking suspicion that there is very little core to her; everything she does or says gets run through the political campaign filter to see what is to her best advantage. Probably comes from being a lawyer.
So we are probably coming down to two late middle age white guys on the Republican side running against either a very charismatic, inexperienced, well spoken middle aged black man or a vindictive, insider, policy wonk middle aged white woman on the Democratic side.
Since I'm a Republican white guy, if I don't vote for Obama or Clinton, does that make me a racist or a sexist? No, according to the the PC crowd, just being Republican, white, and male is sufficient, in and of itself to categorize me as a racist AND a sexist (plus a few other thing besides). Whew! Well, if there can be no salvation, at least I can stop worrying about appearances and just do what I think is best.
Once again, a sincere thank you for your service to our country. God bless and protect you and your family as you serve.
lento = lenghty
Yep. They're focusing desperately on who can garner more of the delegates and that means an image to the left of the one they'll run on in the Presidential elections.
After the convention the winner will be focusing on how to seem more reasonable and middle-of-the-road than McCain. We're not likely to see a public shift of stance until then. The good news is that it won't be any more sincere then than it is now.
My hope is that the Democratic nomination fight is so bitter that it kills all the rock star enthusiasm for Obama or “inevitability” factor for Clinton and we can get McCain elected before they recover.
Unless there is some unknown Republican charmer out there to fill the VP slot, its going to be a tough fight.
Well said, thank you, Jess
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.