|
WaPo Takes the Obamessiah to the Woodshed over Iraq speech
H/T Instapundit. Remarkably unsparing criticism of The Anointed One. And pretty gutsy considering the WaPo's target audience... Barack Obama yesterday accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain of rigidity on Iraq: "They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down." Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish consistency. Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate proposed a timetable for WHACK! POW! At the time he first proposed his timetable, Mr. Obama argued -- wrongly, as it turned out -- that U.S. troops could not stop a sectarian civil war. He conceded that a withdrawal might be accompanied by a "spike" in violence. Now, he describes as "an achievable goal" that "we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future -- a government that prevents sectarian conflict and ensures that the al-Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge." How will that "true success" be achieved? By the same pullout that Mr. Obama proposed when chaos in Iraq appeared to him inevitable. BIFF! BAM! THUMP! "What's missing in our debate," Mr. Obama said yesterday, "is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq." Indeed: The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome -- that Iraq "distracts us from every threat we face" and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. Here's the only part where WaPo got it wrong. The Sacred One and his robot army of supporters are anything BUT indifferent to the war's outcome. To the contrary, they're utterly committed to a helicopters-on-the-embassy-roof scenario. Posted by: Glineque Croluque8558 2008-07-16 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=244389 |