The Audacity of Troop Pullouts

Like I was sayin… do as I say not as I say.

Senator Obama made a big splash with is overseas trip this summer.  He made several anti-free market speeches and even met with military and political leaders in Iraq.

It should be no secret to anyone that Senator Obama favors a speedy withdrawal of US forces from Iraq as he has said so publicly of the last few years.  However, apparently what he does behind the scenes is quite different.

In an article today in the NY Post, Amir Taheri details Obama’s lobbying the Iraqi government to delay an agreement troop withdrawals until after the US elections.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zerbari:

He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington.

The article goes on to detail that:

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn’t want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of “pre-emptive” war – that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

I find it hard to believe that an American presidential candidate would seek to derail Iraqi security negotiations for his own political gain, but then again, some people will do anything to gain power.  This is the type of thing that the candidate of change has been preaching against.

Once again we find our politicians saying one thing, but then doing another.

Right Turn Clyde

Like I was sayin… most people wouldn’t like you if they knew what you really thought.  Apparently, Barack Obama feels the same way.

There have always been several things that bothered me about Sen. Obama, his total support for gun control, support for the “fairness” doctrine, commitment to pull out of Iraq without regard for thesittuation on the ground, and many other positions.

Not suprisingly, his support of these ideas and others allowed him to cater to the far left of the dem party and win the dem nod for the White House.  However, America isn’t far left even though I am afraid the left blinker is stuck on (which I will write about in a few days).  With his eye on the White House, Obama is singing a different tune on many past positions.

Dick Morris pointed out in a recent article many of these new-found convictions:

• He says he believes in a Second Amendment right to bear arms.
• He now opposes late-term abortion.
• He suddenly is a devotee of using faith-based institutions to deliver public services.
• He now says that he won’t raise Social Security taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. In the primary, he said he’d eliminate the threshold entirely, including on people making as little as $100,000.
• He recently opposed the Fairness Doctrine for talk radio.
• Now he says he’s going to consult with the military before pulling out of Iraq.

The upsetting thing is that this leaves many Americans wondering where does he truely stand.  Some of my friends on the left say that he is just saying those things to get elected (which many, oddly enough. think is ok).  The independents that I know that support him say that he only had far left leanings to get the nomination and now we see the real Obama (which oddly enough, they too, think this is ok).  The friends that I am still keeping aren’t voting for him anyway…

Over many years, a person can change their opinion on an issue, but most don’t change over the course of a few months.  I believe that Obama will govern from the far left (even if he doesn’t want to to so, see here).  This would leave America far weaker position in terms of the economy and our adherence to the constitution.

If you support or are leaning toward voting for Obama in November, you have to ask yourself which Obama are you voting for or even more importantly… which one will you get?

Democrats Start New PR Campaign Ahead of Iraq Report

(April 5, 2008) – Like I was saying… some people are very predictable.  With Gen. Petraeus due to deliver a report next week, the dems are ratcheting up the “all is lost message” again.

Just like last year, the dems are starting their PR campaign ahead of a report from the commanding general in Iraq.  Last year, the message was that regardless of what the general says, things aren’t getting any better and the “surge” has failed.

This year, the message is that even though security has dramatically improved the surge is still a failure since the objective was to stabalize security so that the political process can have a chance.  So the new message is that the surge has failed since they way dems define the objective was to provide security AND have everything resolved on the political front.

This week, Sen Joe Biden started to rebutt next weeks testimony by Petraeus.

“The purpose of the surge was to bring violence in Iraq down so that its leaders could come together politically,” said Biden, D-Del., in this week’s Democratic radio address. “Violence has come down, but the Iraqis have not come together.”

As I have posted before, the dems need things to fail in Iraq to improve their quest to gain the whitehouse and increase their numbers in congress.

It is one thing to oppose the war, but it is another to hope for American failure to score political points.  I imagine that we will see more headlines about the dems pushing the failure message in an attempt to counter any positive results the general might highlight.

Attacks in Iraq Continue to Decline

(November 19, 2007) – Like I was sayin… if we don’t pull out soon, things will continue to get better.

 Today I was reading an article in the NYT indicating how the attacks in Iraq continue to decline.

According to the article, since the “surge”, Iraqi forces casualties are down 40% and civilian fatalities are down 75% over the last few months.  Other news stories point to a continued decline in U.S. caualties.  I for one would like to see this continue.  The sooner things become stable in Iraq, the sooner our troops can come home.  I am shocked by the number of people who get upset by good news from Iraq (see my post about Clyburn).

I would imagine however, with this news, you will begin to see further calls for U.S. forces to pull out now from the”please don’t let this thing work out” crowd in congress who would rather see America fail and gain a political win for THE PARTY than see things improve.

Mass. Boy Scouts Stopped from Supporting the Troops

(Nov. 16, 2007)  Like I was sayin… for it or against it, you have to support the troops.

 According to an article I saw today, a troop of boy scouts were stopped from supporting the troops in Cambridge.

 Apparently, the boy scouts had put collection boxes at 33 of the city’s polling stations on election day in the hopes of collecting candy, magazines, toiletries, etc… for the troops.

Apparently, when somebody complained that the boxes represented a political statement, the collection boxes were removed.

 It seems to me that the scouts were collecting for the troops and not a ‘support the war’ drive or a candidate running for office.

Seems that the city of Cambridge allowed 1 person to make their own political statement by having the collection boxes removed.  But like I was saying… you can’t afford to offend even 1 person anymore.

Sen. Biden’s son Heads to Iraq

(Aug 17, 2007) – Like I was sayin… sometimes you can’t help but have some common sense.

It was reported today that Sen. Biden’s son is to be deployed to Iraq.  With the Democrats being mostly of the ‘pull out now’ ilk, I couldn’t wait to read the article to see what all political points Biden had to make.

 However, I was shocked to see what Biden had to say. 

“I don’t want him going,” Biden, D-Del., said from the campaign trail Wednesday, according to a report on Radio Iowa. “But I tell you what, I don’t want my grandson or my granddaughters going back in 15 years and so how we leave makes a big difference.”"I don’t want him going,” Biden, D-Del., said from the campaign trail Wednesday, according to a report on Radio Iowa. “But I tell you what, I don’t want my grandson or my granddaughters going back in 15 years and so how we leave makes a big difference.”

That kind of made me take a step back, but then the story continued: 

“There’s no political point worth my son’s life,” Biden said, according to Radio Iowa. “There’s no political point worth anybodies life out there. None.”

It’s kind of refreshing to hear talk like this.  I disagree with just about everything Biden has to say, however, it was nice to hear somebody putting common sense before party politics.

Support for War Growing?

(Aug 2, 2007) – Like I said… some people prefer bad news…

Recently, the NYT conducted a poll on America’s feelings about the war in Iraq.  When the results came back, rather than publish them, they conducted another poll as the poll had results they didn’t agree with.

Here is a great article by Debra Saunders that comments on the story.

The initial poll found that the number of people who thought it was right for the U.S. to go to war had risen from 35% in May to 42% in July.  Being that the NYT didn’t agree with the results they re-polled.  Suprising to them, the results were the same at 42%.  However, they also found that those who thought it was wrong to go to war had fallen from 61%  to 51%.

This could indicate that as there has been positive news from Iraq recently in the MSM, American’s opinions are shifting slightly.  It seems that more people feel it is the right thing to do if we win.

With this in mind, I would expect to see the Dems in Congress all over the news this week and next week trying to push just how “bad” things really are in Iraq.  They view things going badly in Iraq as good for the Dems and their quest for power.

As I have noted before, some people are more interested in politics and power than victory for America.

More Bad News for Dems and Clyburn from Iraq – U.S. Death Toll Hits 8 Month Low

(July 31, 2007) – Like I was sayin… you need to pull for the right team.

Here is an article detailing more “bad news” for the Dems in Congress.  That is bad news in the way the Congressman Clyburn (D!) S.C. defines bad news.  Apparently, Mr. Clyburn defines positive news in Iraq as bad for the Dems in Congress.

Apparently, in July, American deaths in Iraq are at their lowest level in 8 months.  Granted, one death is too many, but this is good news.

Notice, however, that the AP article then goes on to include bad news about the political progress to counter the positive news.

Its time that we realize just who is pulling for the good guys and who would rather we fail.  I for one am pulling for the good guys.

Dems Want More Bad News From Iraq

(July 31, 2007) – Like I was sayin… they just don’t care about America.

I have been saying this for a long time now.  The Democrats in congress want America to be defeated in Iraq.  Their sole focus is defeating Bush regardless of the cost to America.

In a recent Washington Post article, Congressman James Clyburn (D!) from S.C. admits that any positive news in Iraq is bad for the Dems.  I find it hard to believe that a sitting U.S. congressman view good news from Iraq as bad and news of car bombs, IEDs, and the deaths of U.S. forces as “good” news.

Clyburn indicated that a positive report in Sept. from Gen. Petraeus would be “a real big problem for us”.  I assume he means the Dems.

In another statement from the article Clyburn indicates that “People feel good about the Democratic Party, they just don’t feel real good about the Congress itself.”  No Mr. Clyburn, we do not feel good about a party that has vested itself in the defeat of America.

As I have been saying all along if it is good for the Dems, it must be bad for America.

Hurry Up and Exit Iraq Before We Win This Thing

(July 30, 2007) – Like I was sayin… its more about scoring political points than what is good for America.

Recently, there have been reports of good news from Iraq.  Apparently, commanders and journalists are reporting that ‘The Surge’ is having a positive impact in Iraq.  Its probably pre-mature to call the surge a success until we hear back from the gernerals in Iraq in September, but the news is reassuring.

That is why I find it so bazar that Democrats, like John Murtha, are doing everything they can to try and draw down troops and hinder war progress as soon as possible.  Here is a link to a post that details how Murtha wants to tie funding to us begining to leave within 60 days.  Odd that we need to begin exiting before we get the final say on the surge.

I think I say this about every other post or so, but why do the democrats want to end this as soon as possible as more and more good news about progress comes to light?  It seems like they are more concerned about handing Bush a political defeat than about letting America acheive success.