Betsy's Page

Saturday, July 05, 2008

Why Obama's muddled movement on withdrawing the troops from Iraq matters

The Obama campaign has been trying to clarify the increasingly muddled position that Obama is trying to take on whether or not he still intends to withdraw the troops from Iraq in 2009 or the first 18 months of his presidency or whenever. Jennifer Rubin sums up what his problem is.
Obama tried in the course of a single day to argue he was refining or reassessing his Iraq policy but to also insist nothing was changed. Is he altering course or sticking to his plan to withdraw a brigade or two a month no matter what? Still not clear, but his defensive insistence that he is not “searching for maneuvering room” seemed to give away exactly what was afoot.

But that is his key dilemma: if he changes policy he is revealed to have flip-flopped and admitted error on an issue of war and peace (and his candidacy’s guiding focus), but if he adheres to his view that the surge changed nothing and all is lost he has revealed himself to be out of touch with reality. It’s quite a fix.
And then Rubin gives some advice to the McCain campaign that I hope they'll take.
It is up to the McCain team to explain why all this matters. For starters, if we assume Obama is in fact going to revise and reverse course, the McCain camp will no doubt argue: 1) Obama made the wrong strategic decision on the surge; 2) He stuck with that decision long after available evidence indicated he was wrong; 3) He waged a primary fight based on that failed strategy and continued it through his nomination, likely after he recognized he would have to revise that policy (i.e. he lied to Democratic primary voters); 4) He refused to avail himself of reliable information either from commanders or independent experts that would have helped him revise his views earlier; 5) He is changing policy — and then won’t admit to changing his policy — for pure political gain (i.e. to avoid embarrassing himself in the general election); and 6) His craven political maneuvering leaves entirely uncertain what his future Iraq plans will entail, how forceful he will be in executing them and whether they too will be thrown overboard if political winds shift.

But beyond explaining all this, the McCain team must link this to the overarching issues of leadership, credibility and determination. Iraq is not the top issue for voters so if the McCain camp is to use this effectively, Schmidt and company must explain why Obama’s abysmal conduct on Iraq — where American lives are at stake — has importance beyond the specific issue of Iraq. Is this the type of political leader Obama promised to be and is Obama the person to make decisions on vexing issues (both foreign and domestic) over the next four years? Or put in the positive light, does this prove McCain is the superior leader with superior judgment?
And lastly, if Obama is, after a long campaign and after finally consulting with the generals on the ground, coming around to the position that McCain has held all along, then we should congratulate him on his slow, but clear progress to recognizing the correct policy.
Finally, however craven and however transparent Obama’s shift may be his efforts to get out from under his untenable withdrawal position are the ultimate proof of the wisdom of the surge strategy and of those who championed it against all political odds. And if by force of events and political expediency the Democrats must embrace the surge we can at least be grateful that after eighteen months we finally will have bipartisan agreement on Iraq. The latter is a very good thing — provided it is genuine and not simply political artifice.
Labels: Obama

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 9:03 AM 0 comments

Comments:

The Obama campaign has been trying to clarify the increasingly muddled position that Obama is trying to take on whether or not he still intends to withdraw the troops from Iraq in 2009 or the first 18 months of his presidency or whenever. Jennifer Rubin sums up what his problem is.

Obama tried in the course of a single day to argue he was refining or reassessing his Iraq policy but to also insist nothing was changed. Is he altering course or sticking to his plan to withdraw a brigade or two a month no matter what? Still not clear, but his defensive insistence that he is not “searching for maneuvering room” seemed to give away exactly what was afoot.

But that is his key dilemma: if he changes policy he is revealed to have flip-flopped and admitted error on an issue of war and peace (and his candidacy’s guiding focus), but if he adheres to his view that the surge changed nothing and all is lost he has revealed himself to be out of touch with reality. It’s quite a fix.

And then Rubin gives some advice to the McCain campaign that I hope they'll take.

It is up to the McCain team to explain why all this matters. For starters, if we assume Obama is in fact going to revise and reverse course, the McCain camp will no doubt argue: 1) Obama made the wrong strategic decision on the surge; 2) He stuck with that decision long after available evidence indicated he was wrong; 3) He waged a primary fight based on that failed strategy and continued it through his nomination, likely after he recognized he would have to revise that policy (i.e. he lied to Democratic primary voters); 4) He refused to avail himself of reliable information either from commanders or independent experts that would have helped him revise his views earlier; 5) He is changing policy — and then won’t admit to changing his policy — for pure political gain (i.e. to avoid embarrassing himself in the general election); and 6) His craven political maneuvering leaves entirely uncertain what his future Iraq plans will entail, how forceful he will be in executing them and whether they too will be thrown overboard if political winds shift.

But beyond explaining all this, the McCain team must link this to the overarching issues of leadership, credibility and determination. Iraq is not the top issue for voters so if the McCain camp is to use this effectively, Schmidt and company must explain why Obama’s abysmal conduct on Iraq — where American lives are at stake — has importance beyond the specific issue of Iraq. Is this the type of political leader Obama promised to be and is Obama the person to make decisions on vexing issues (both foreign and domestic) over the next four years? Or put in the positive light, does this prove McCain is the superior leader with superior judgment?

And lastly, if Obama is, after a long campaign and after finally consulting with the generals on the ground, coming around to the position that McCain has held all along, then we should congratulate him on his slow, but clear progress to recognizing the correct policy.

Finally, however craven and however transparent Obama’s shift may be his efforts to get out from under his untenable withdrawal position are the ultimate proof of the wisdom of the surge strategy and of those who championed it against all political odds. And if by force of events and political expediency the Democrats must embrace the surge we can at least be grateful that after eighteen months we finally will have bipartisan agreement on Iraq. The latter is a very good thing — provided it is genuine and not simply political artifice.

Labels: Obama

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 9:03 AM 0 comments

Comments: Post a Comment

The truth about Avesil

Cheap Hosting

Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney

Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney

Wikio

Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights

Online Bachelors Degree

Saturday, July 05, 2008

Why Obama's muddled movement on withdrawing the troops from Iraq matters

		Betsy's Page

HOME Betsy neither necessarily uses, nor endorses, the products advertised on this site. The truth about Avesil Cheap Hosting Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney Wikio Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights Online Bachelors Degree Comments from an AP history and government teacher in Raleigh, NC. e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you. Site Feed		Saturday, July 05, 2008 Why Obama's muddled movement on withdrawing the troops from Iraq matters The Obama campaign has been trying to clarify the increasingly muddled position that Obama is trying to take on whether or not he still intends to withdraw the troops from Iraq in 2009 or the first 18 months of his presidency or whenever. Jennifer Rubin sums up what his problem is. Obama tried in the course of a single day to argue he was refining or reassessing his Iraq policy but to also insist nothing was changed. Is he altering course or sticking to his plan to withdraw a brigade or two a month no matter what? Still not clear, but his defensive insistence that he is not “searching for maneuvering room” seemed to give away exactly what was afoot. But that is his key dilemma: if he changes policy he is revealed to have flip-flopped and admitted error on an issue of war and peace (and his candidacy’s guiding focus), but if he adheres to his view that the surge changed nothing and all is lost he has revealed himself to be out of touch with reality. It’s quite a fix. And then Rubin gives some advice to the McCain campaign that I hope they'll take. It is up to the McCain team to explain why all this matters. For starters, if we assume Obama is in fact going to revise and reverse course, the McCain camp will no doubt argue: 1) Obama made the wrong strategic decision on the surge; 2) He stuck with that decision long after available evidence indicated he was wrong; 3) He waged a primary fight based on that failed strategy and continued it through his nomination, likely after he recognized he would have to revise that policy (i.e. he lied to Democratic primary voters); 4) He refused to avail himself of reliable information either from commanders or independent experts that would have helped him revise his views earlier; 5) He is changing policy — and then won’t admit to changing his policy — for pure political gain (i.e. to avoid embarrassing himself in the general election); and 6) His craven political maneuvering leaves entirely uncertain what his future Iraq plans will entail, how forceful he will be in executing them and whether they too will be thrown overboard if political winds shift. But beyond explaining all this, the McCain team must link this to the overarching issues of leadership, credibility and determination. Iraq is not the top issue for voters so if the McCain camp is to use this effectively, Schmidt and company must explain why Obama’s abysmal conduct on Iraq — where American lives are at stake — has importance beyond the specific issue of Iraq. Is this the type of political leader Obama promised to be and is Obama the person to make decisions on vexing issues (both foreign and domestic) over the next four years? Or put in the positive light, does this prove McCain is the superior leader with superior judgment? And lastly, if Obama is, after a long campaign and after finally consulting with the generals on the ground, coming around to the position that McCain has held all along, then we should congratulate him on his slow, but clear progress to recognizing the correct policy. Finally, however craven and however transparent Obama’s shift may be his efforts to get out from under his untenable withdrawal position are the ultimate proof of the wisdom of the surge strategy and of those who championed it against all political odds. And if by force of events and political expediency the Democrats must embrace the surge we can at least be grateful that after eighteen months we finally will have bipartisan agreement on Iraq. The latter is a very good thing — provided it is genuine and not simply political artifice. Labels: Obama posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 9:03 AM 0 comments Comments: The Obama campaign has been trying to clarify the increasingly muddled position that Obama is trying to take on whether or not he still intends to withdraw the troops from Iraq in 2009 or the first 18 months of his presidency or whenever. Jennifer Rubin sums up what his problem is. Obama tried in the course of a single day to argue he was refining or reassessing his Iraq policy but to also insist nothing was changed. Is he altering course or sticking to his plan to withdraw a brigade or two a month no matter what? Still not clear, but his defensive insistence that he is not “searching for maneuvering room” seemed to give away exactly what was afoot. But that is his key dilemma: if he changes policy he is revealed to have flip-flopped and admitted error on an issue of war and peace (and his candidacy’s guiding focus), but if he adheres to his view that the surge changed nothing and all is lost he has revealed himself to be out of touch with reality. It’s quite a fix. And then Rubin gives some advice to the McCain campaign that I hope they'll take. It is up to the McCain team to explain why all this matters. For starters, if we assume Obama is in fact going to revise and reverse course, the McCain camp will no doubt argue: 1) Obama made the wrong strategic decision on the surge; 2) He stuck with that decision long after available evidence indicated he was wrong; 3) He waged a primary fight based on that failed strategy and continued it through his nomination, likely after he recognized he would have to revise that policy (i.e. he lied to Democratic primary voters); 4) He refused to avail himself of reliable information either from commanders or independent experts that would have helped him revise his views earlier; 5) He is changing policy — and then won’t admit to changing his policy — for pure political gain (i.e. to avoid embarrassing himself in the general election); and 6) His craven political maneuvering leaves entirely uncertain what his future Iraq plans will entail, how forceful he will be in executing them and whether they too will be thrown overboard if political winds shift. But beyond explaining all this, the McCain team must link this to the overarching issues of leadership, credibility and determination. Iraq is not the top issue for voters so if the McCain camp is to use this effectively, Schmidt and company must explain why Obama’s abysmal conduct on Iraq — where American lives are at stake — has importance beyond the specific issue of Iraq. Is this the type of political leader Obama promised to be and is Obama the person to make decisions on vexing issues (both foreign and domestic) over the next four years? Or put in the positive light, does this prove McCain is the superior leader with superior judgment? And lastly, if Obama is, after a long campaign and after finally consulting with the generals on the ground, coming around to the position that McCain has held all along, then we should congratulate him on his slow, but clear progress to recognizing the correct policy. Finally, however craven and however transparent Obama’s shift may be his efforts to get out from under his untenable withdrawal position are the ultimate proof of the wisdom of the surge strategy and of those who championed it against all political odds. And if by force of events and political expediency the Democrats must embrace the surge we can at least be grateful that after eighteen months we finally will have bipartisan agreement on Iraq. The latter is a very good thing — provided it is genuine and not simply political artifice. Labels: Obama posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 9:03 AM 0 comments Comments: Post a Comment