08-19-2008, 07:59 PM
Quote:
Barack Obama is his party’s presumptive nominee for President because he was the first and the loudest candidate to oppose the War in Iraq. That issue is the single greatest factor precipitating Obama’s rocket-like ascent within the Democratic Party. Unfortunately for America, it becomes more and more apparent with each passing day that not only does Barack Obama have no idea what should be done in Iraq, even more concerning is the fact that he clearly doesn’t care.
This fact is driven home today by an unlikely source, The Washington Post. In a blistering editorial, the Post lambastes Obama for favoring political posturing over sound policy in Iraq. Quoth the Post:
Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After hinting earlier this month that he might “refine” his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq.
As the editorial rightly concludes, Barack Obama “is ultimately indifferent to the war’s outcome.” Precipitous withdrawal from Iraq is simply more important to Obama and his supporters than whatever impact such withdrawal could have on the long-term safety and security of Iraq, America, and the World. This is proven not only by his foolish adherence to an arbitrarily selected timeline, but also by his attempts to whitewash his past criticisms of the surge, now that it is clear that strategy has worked.
Despite his obvious political skills, Barack Obama’s stunning lack of experience or understanding of military and foreign affairs ought to be too great a handicap for any person seeking this nation’s highest office in such a time of global uncertainty. For those who care about both getting our trooops home as quickly as possible AND securing long-term political and military success in Iraq and elsewhere in the Global War on Terror, John McCain is the only choice for President.
This fact is driven home today by an unlikely source, The Washington Post. In a blistering editorial, the Post lambastes Obama for favoring political posturing over sound policy in Iraq. Quoth the Post:
Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After hinting earlier this month that he might “refine” his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq.
As the editorial rightly concludes, Barack Obama “is ultimately indifferent to the war’s outcome.” Precipitous withdrawal from Iraq is simply more important to Obama and his supporters than whatever impact such withdrawal could have on the long-term safety and security of Iraq, America, and the World. This is proven not only by his foolish adherence to an arbitrarily selected timeline, but also by his attempts to whitewash his past criticisms of the surge, now that it is clear that strategy has worked.
Despite his obvious political skills, Barack Obama’s stunning lack of experience or understanding of military and foreign affairs ought to be too great a handicap for any person seeking this nation’s highest office in such a time of global uncertainty. For those who care about both getting our trooops home as quickly as possible AND securing long-term political and military success in Iraq and elsewhere in the Global War on Terror, John McCain is the only choice for President.