December 03, 2008
Conflicted about Obama
The following NYT piece about Obama and his shifting Iraq policy has me very conflicted:
On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to “end the war” in Iraq.But as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months.
“I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said this week as he introduced his national security team...
That status-of-forces agreement remains subject to change, by mutual agreement, and Army planners acknowledge privately that they are examining projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 and 50,000 — and some say as high as 70,000 — for a substantial time even beyond 2011.
Now I'm ecstatic that Obama seems to be taking a reasonable approach to this issue. It's what's good for both countries. Let's face it, whether you agreed with this war in the beginning or not (and most Americans did) we broke it, therefore we bought it. The cut and run approach that Obama offered as late as 2007 would have done a huge disservice to the fledgling democracy of Iraq and damaged our credibility even more than it's been damaged to date. So I'm good with this, like I am OK with many of Obama's other recent announcements like the one about shelving a windfall profits tax on oil companies.
But it's really, really frustrating to see that this guy who basically ran as a new kind of politician really turns out to be a fraud. Remember when Obama attacked McCain for his "100 years" remark? McCain was equating Iraq to Japan and Germany, two countries where we had significant numbers of troops stationed for decades in non-war conditions. The troops were necessary for the security of the regions in the face of great threats. Obama purposely took the quote of context to attack McCain and characterize him as a guy who wants a 100-years war.
Obama's seeming metamorphosis from lefty dove who might appoint Bill Ayers as his secretary of defense and Jeremiah Wright as his secretary of state to a reasonable moderate is much better for the country and for Obama politically in the long run. There's a small part of me that says, you ran like a liberal, govern like one and let people see your true colors.
We'll see what happens. It hasn't been all good. Eric Holder is scumbag who denied then defended the gestapo tactics used on Elian's family. Greg Craig is fidel castro's attorney. I don't expect most Americans to be outraged about either of those. But like I said, we'll see what happens.
Posted by Henry Louis Gomez at December 3, 2008 11:26 PM
Comments
I'm with Max Boot who proclaimed himself gobsmacked by Obama's selections for foreign policy posts and his apparent moderation. It may not be what we want in totality but he's given us the best we could hope for under a Dem administration.
Incidentally - waiting to see you post something on that dolt of a Congresswoman who represents some of us in S. Floirda. Sure I prefer her to a Dem but she's a unadulterated moron. If a decent Dem runs against her I would definitely cast my vote.
Posted by: theCardinal ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.babalublog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 4, 2008 07:15 AM
Obama ran left in the primaries. Ran a little to the middle in the Pres. election. He will now have to move a bit more to the middle to govern. Is it fraudulent? Sure, but it's the way it is for LibDems.
Posted by: joaquin at December 4, 2008 07:48 AM
I agree with you Henry. What may also be something to ponder is as he is now getting all this intelligence about threats and whatnot, he may be going "oh shit, this better not happen on my watch." Cause we all know if something happens on his watch he's done and gone.
Holder is a horrible pick for AG. In addition, to the things we know, even though they had the 20th hijacker's laptop, he did not allow authorities to search it on 4th amendment grounds, because it was not germane to the immigration charge he was picked up on. Well if they had done so, they may not have been able to use the evidence in a trial (bad search) but perhaps it could have prevented an attack for as it turns, his laptop had all the data and info re: the hijackers.
Posted by: Cigar Mike Pancier at December 4, 2008 09:04 AM
I agree with you Cigar Mike,
This Eric Holder is a catastrophic choice for AG and the American people will regret it one day.
Make no mistake, the MSM is singing many praises abou Obama's cabinet picks, but I don't buy that B.S.
I don't think that ex-Clinton's cabinet members are the right choices to correctly steer this nation during the perilous years facing us ahead.
Posted by: FreedomForCuba at December 4, 2008 02:19 PM
I focused my comments on ForPol picks. Do I like Hillary? No...but she is worlds better than Kerry. I like Gates, I like Jones and I can't stand Susan Rice but she's at the UN (as if it matters). The picks aren't bad. They would be better if we had someone that we totally agree with but get a friggin' clue...we lost the election and so far things could be a whole lot worse. Strobe Talbott is still looking for a job and so is Holbroke - that's a good thing.
Holder sucks but did you think he was going to go moderate with all his picks? I hate Clinton as much as the next guy, never voted for him and still wouldn't but his 8 years were better than the last 8. Clinton was an asshole but W was (is) a moron. There isn't a moderate or liberal who wouldn't have prefered to have Clintonistas running the show than Republican retreads and who are we to blame them. We screwed it up. Who screwed up the budget? Who screwed up the war? We can fault Bill for 9/11 but Iraq was all us...it cost more lives.
Posted by: theCardinal at December 4, 2008 02:36 PM
theCardinal,
Bill Clinton was a facade of an administration that helped the economy by raising taxes, cutting government expenses (thanks to the Newt's Congress) and greatly cutting the national defense budget.
When he left office the American people thought (and still stupidly think) that he did a great job. The truth is that he weakened America is ways that the people cannot imagine today.
Make no mistake, the reason that we could not put more soldiers in the ground in Iraq to finish the war more quickly was because Bill Clinton's deep military cuts in the 1990s. This is the same reason why we have not taken a stand against Iran's nuclear ambitions.
America is no longer the military power that once was under Ronald Wilson Reagan and George Bush Sr. and is because of the Clinton's legacy.
Yet many people think that Bill Clinton was a great President because he helped the economy but, look at what price he did.
This is the key here, when you cut the national defense budget to help the economy you are playing Russian roulette with the safety and the future of the American people (as Bill Clinton did).
At least the "moron" of George W. Bush would not dare to do that so I give him that much credit.
You can attack George W. Bush for all you want but at least we have not being attacked again.
I guarantee you that if we had a Democrat in the White House the last 8 years we would have been attacked again and only God knows the intensity and the consequences would have been of that attack.
Make no mistake, sooner than expected Obama will engage in the same Clintonite policies and the American people will pay the price years down the road (if not earlier).
So if you believe in the Bill Clinton facade that's your choice.
America needs a President that makes the economy strong again and puts America first while keeping the strong military defense that we once had because we have more outside threats than ever before.
And the stakes are that we'll be hit with a weapon of mass destruction in the future if we don't regain our military greatness.
Today other than maybe Joe Liberman there is no member of the Democratic Party actually capable of following this path and only very few Republicans(because the rest have become a bunch of bullshit RINOs).
Posted by: FreedomForCuba at December 4, 2008 03:33 PM