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.

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.