Captain Ed: Obama Adviser Says Keep Troops in Iraq
[Guest post by DRJ]
Thanks to cfbleachers for the heads up on this Captain Ed post at Hot Air:
“Barack Obama’s adviser on Iraq has written a confidential paper arguing that the US needs to remain robustly engaged in Iraq in order to build on the successes of the past year. The New York Sun’s Eli Lake reports on the confidential paper by Colin Kahl, the coordinator for Obama’s advisory group on Iraq, which foresees the same kind of long-term presence that John McCain has advocated. It calls for a gradual reduction through 2010 to a baseline presence of as many as 80,000 American troops.”
As Captain Ed explains at the link, Obama has a dilemma. Read his post and consider what you think Obama will do to resolve it.
— DRJ
Fire the scoundrel for even thinking that, or, just continue to lie. Gen. McPeak of the Obama campaign has said much the same thing previously, and they just ignored it, and kept lying about McCain. Why would they change tactics when they are never called on it?
JD (75f5c3) — 4/4/2008 @ 12:01 pmHe’ll distance himself from the report and the adviser…. until after the election, when if Obama is elected, the adviser will (re)join the Obama Administration and 80,000 US troops will stay in Iraq.
steve sturm (40e5a6) — 4/4/2008 @ 12:01 pmi dont think it matters what his position is, you have as good a chance of being elected president as barack obama. lets face it, JMAC is going to win and win BIG.
james conrad (7cd809) — 4/4/2008 @ 12:19 pmThis is great for McCain. A steady stream of Obama supporters and other Dems admitting that Obama’s position is merely his best-case scenario.
McPeak, Powers, now Kahl.
wt (ca1cea) — 4/4/2008 @ 12:33 pmIF he is elected, (and I think less and less of his chances), he will declare victory in Iraq, claim credit for said victory, and then declare any more talk about it a ‘distraction’ from the many, suddenly more pressing problems elsewhere.
The troops will stay, as advisors, or better yet “peace monitors”, and unicorns will dance happily in the fields.
Anon 1:50 (aeb021) — 4/4/2008 @ 1:10 pmOh! And Michell Obama will not be proud.
Anon 1:50 (aeb021) — 4/4/2008 @ 1:10 pmApparently, House MisSpeaker Nancy Pelosi has not gotten the memo.
http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2008/04/nancy-pelosi-prepares-battlespace.html
This is a woman who is so politically and morally craven,she can’t admit success because for her far leftism grandstanding…success is a failure.
Ultimately, success in Iraq means that her entire platform fails. Success in Iraq means her rallying cry loses traction.
However, how dare she impose a silencing warning to Gen Petraeus, who the hell does she think she is?
This arrogant, smarmy, self-aggrandizing political hack enjoys the cover of a corrupt media AFTER the fact…so, her imperious and haughty belief that she impose enforced distortion ought to be slammed in its tracks.
Would she impose the ban on “good news” any better than the diseased MetaStasisMedia is doing anyway? It’s bad enough that the errors of omission and comission in this conflict’s reporting have been one sided and diseased from the outset.
Now what? A code of silence and threats of reprisal for anyone who tells the truth.
Go straight to hell, Madam MisSpeaker. Do not pass go, do not collect any earmarks.
If Kahl and McPeak say there is success…then why can’t Petraeus?
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 4/4/2008 @ 1:14 pmcf – Get with the program. The new dem meme is that the war can’t be won militarily. They can grudgingly acknowledge a little military progress here and there, because the Sunnis in Anbar turned on Al Queda and Sadr declared a cease fire, but dammit, we don’t have any political progress on that U.S. imposed timetable (sort of like nothing getting done in Congress except hearing to smear Republicans, but no legislation). Plus the cost is impoverishing future generations of Americans and resulting in the crumbling of our infrastructure. I’m losing track whther this is meme v38.3 or a higher number.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/4/2008 @ 1:22 pmone more face lift and Pelosi will have a beard. %-)
as for Obama, he’ll lie about the whole situation.
/all he ever does
redc1c4 (a877b7) — 4/4/2008 @ 2:47 pmSteve sturm and Anon, Yep and Yep, Altho GW may beat the big O to declaring victory. No matter who gets to claim that they won the war the troops are staying. Was there ever any doubt about that?
EdWood (c2268a) — 4/4/2008 @ 2:54 pmIf true, it’s troubling Obama surrounds himself with advisers with an alternative strategic vision.
steve (11ba26) — 4/4/2008 @ 4:14 pmThis is actually quite brilliant. All Obama needs is for enough guilt-ridden whites, who otherwise just could not support BHO because they don’t want to lose the war, to get the notion that “he doesn’t really mean he will totally withdraw.” This will give these feckless folks cover when the consequences of a BHO foreign policy manifest.
Anything that hints at BHO not really being the radical leftist he is will be most useful to the junior senator. Watch for a LOT of this come the summer.
Ed (215a21) — 4/4/2008 @ 4:40 pmEdWood,
I doubt it. If enough anti-war Democrats win seats in Congress and if Obama runs on an anti-war platform and wins, the Democrats will have to make their actions match their rhetoric.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/4/2008 @ 5:43 pmTo illustrate DRJ’s comment:
Would President Obama veto a “Pull the troops out now” bill passed by Congress, like Bush has? Especially if it’s the first bill to cross his desk?
And if he does, how would that be “Change”?
MartyH (fd100c) — 4/4/2008 @ 6:52 pm