Obama and getting his facts straight
Will John McCain end up regretting his challenge to Obama to finally visit Iraq for himself?
Obama’s trip is starting to resemble that of a rock star, with an entourage and a press corps the likes of which even the Pope doesn’t receive. In fact, at this point Obama might say—as John Lennon did before him—that he’s more popular than Jesus, although I’m not totally sure Obama wouldn’t think the theological comparison somewhat apt. Or maybe a Moses analogy would be better, since Obama believes—no, scratch that; he is absolutely certain—that his election will favorably affect the ocean levels.
The Wall Street Journal wonders whether an Obama visit to Iraq will cause him to finally declare the surge a victory and admit his earlier error on that. I say don’t hold your breath—although on the other hand, he could use it as a golden opportunity to demonstrate his remarkable flexibility of mind.
This statement by the WSJ editors is a sentiment with which I heartily agree:
It would be nice if Mr. Obama could at least get his facts straight.
But until now Obama’s never been one to let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good argument, or a good rhetorical device.
It will be interesting to see if/how Obama tries to get out of the bind he’s put himself in regarding the surge and Iraq. It’s ironic that, in order to respond to what the generals tell him, listen to the facts, and actually change his mind publicly, he would implicitly be admitting that his opponent was one of the few people who was right on this all along.
This will be apparent to anyone who knows the history of the arguments over the surge when it was first being debated—but I wonder what percentage of the population has been following it that closely, or cares.
Many of the people I’ve talked to about Obama are beginning to learn about his feet of clay—or maybe it’s his legs of clay by this time. They don’t like what they’re learning. But they will vote for him anyway because he’s a Democrat, and so are they.
One thing I still don’t quite get: I understand people are fed up with the Republicans and want a change. But after looking at the change they got with the election of the 2006 Democratic Congress, I can’t understand how they can think the Democrats in general (not just Obama in particular) will provide the change they seek, or anything like it.
He won’t. They know it. It doesn’t matter.
Bub is another troll attacker.
Reality check:
You cannot describe a country under occupation as a democracy. You will only know if you have successfully built a democracy in Iraq when you withdraw. The British occupied Iraq for four decades, first as a League of Nations mandate, then as a protectorate. When they left, the Iraqis lost no time tearing the government they left behind to pieces. Literally.
Sanator McCain’s proposal to stay in Iraq for a hundred years would avoid that problem, but would impose sacrifices the American people will probably not accept.
“but would impose sacrifices the American people will probably not accept.”
Like the sacrifices we’ve not accepted in South Korea, Japan, and Europe? For 50+ and 60+ years respectively?
How’s John Lennon doing now?
Oh.
Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan and South Korea aren’t democracies?
It’s interesting that former British colonies are successful and stable nations and protectorates and such became failed states.
With luck and a little wisdom, the presence of American troops for a couple of generations will help the forces of stability. But it will be hard; just as India has to continually fight bribery and inefficiency, so must Iraq.
It must be sad to be an American and to be so invested in the failure of democracy in Iraq.
I thought the democrats were hyped as the “yes we can” people.
Then we discover Iraqis living stable lives brings out the “oh know you don’ts”?
Funny how attitude of a political party gets past all the latest and greatest media adornment.
stumbley: for most of the last 30-odd years, your government has passed those sacrifices on to your descendants through massive trade and government deficits.
Occam’s beard: compare the standard NATO status of forces agreement with what Goerge Bush wanted the Iraqis to sign.
njcommuter: British colonies included Sierra Leone (crown colony) and Zimbabwe (as southern Rhodesia). Those states don’t look like unqualified success stories to me.
Spragge:
You wrote: “your government has passed those sacrifices on to your descendants through massive trade and government deficits.”
Oh – then you’re not a US citizen?
Just asking…
John Spragge: “You cannot describe a country under occupation as a democracy. You will only know if you have successfully built a democracy in Iraq when you withdraw.”
You need to explain this to me. Admittedly, I’m not British and your assertion confuses me because I served in Korea as an American soldier. In fact, I was on driver-escort detail in Seoul during the 50th anniversary of the Korean War commemoration.
I think the key point is defining what you mean by occupation. Obviously, the US has a history of sustained military presence in nations that are peaceful functioning sovereign democracies. I suppose the key is to understand when our military presence is no longer an occupation, as you may understand the term, and has instead evolved into a partnership.
When Senator McCain spoke about the possibility of a long-term military presence in Iraq, he clarified and I understood him to mean a military presence that looks like what we have today in Korea, not what our mission looks like today in Iraq.
John Spragge,
I thought about it a bit further, and I think I can add a bit to this discussion. The US history in Iraq isn’t the same as British history in Iraq. I agree with you, however, that if a long-term US presence is needed in order to artificially sustain the integrity of the Iraqi state, then that would be a failure of British proportions. It is correct that a main mission of US forces in Iraq today is to achieve the integrity of the Iraqi state. Until we can step back from a functioning sovereign Iraqi state, we are occupiers.
As has been pointed out, we were occupiers in Germany, Korea and Japan, too. With time, we were able to step back from functioning sovereign states and end the nation-building mission while our military presence transformed into partnership roles. When I served in Korea, we took no part in governing Korea. It takes time to make the transition from benign occupier to strategic partner. We’re not there yet in Iraq, but we’re a lot closer than we were.
Neo: “Will John McCain end up regretting his challenge to Obama to finally visit Iraq for himself?”
If Obama learns something on his trip that pulls him closer to the Lieberman-McCain camp on Iraq and the War on Terror, thus helping to shape an Obama presidency, then Senator McCain can at least take solace that he helped prepare the next Commander in Chief deal with issues that matter more than an election.
“They don’t like what they’re learning. But they will vote for him anyway because he’s a Democrat, and so are they. ”
My elderly friends, FDR Democrats all, most who never have voted for a Republican, will NOT vote for him. Funny we haven’t heard much about this group during this election season.
huxley: I do not live in the United States or hold American citizenship, and I do not consider my feelings regarding democracy in Iraq relevant. If you think I have made an error of fact, feel free to point it out. If you do not, then the facts (20% of the pre-war population as internal or external refugees, over half a million dead) matter more than my feelings about them.
If the facts really mattered to John, he wouldn’t have ignored Eric’s reasoned arguments.
What matters are John’s interpretations of facts, which can be modified to suit internal delusions.
Another series of banter between Ari and Eric and turle with a love interest at last!
The accident of finding this post has breegtinhd my day