Gateway Pundit has an interesting bit of video from last night’s Democratic debate, as ABC News commentator Charles Gibson asks the candidates whether any of them are ready to admit that the surge of forces to Iraq – which all of them opposed – has been successful
The candidates were not of course, which – given the facts as they were presented to them – makes for an awkward television moment.
These people aren’t stupid, and they recognize good news when it tweaks them on the nose. What they’re clearly incapable of doing is publicly acknowledging what all the world knows to be true out of fear that they will be anathematized by their party’s primary voters.
These, you will remember, are teh reality-based set.
As others have written elsewhere before, they are of the community-based-reality, not reality-based-community.
Hey, that’s not fair!
The clip stopped just when the host finally gave the candidates a chance to speak. I want to hear what they said…
I thought it was unreal when Obama said he would bomb Western Pakistan as that was the sure-thing place to find Osama. (Who better to know for sure where Osama is than Obama?!) But then… Richardson volunteered that he would ask Musharref (sp?) to step aside.
Shades of Vietnam when LBJ fomented leadership change in South Vietnam at the drop of a jungle rotted leaf. Leave it to a Kennedy legacy man to lead a coup on yet another foreign head of government.
Oh, yes… Hillary trotted out the missiles; “we sent missiles” and she’ll send them again. Yes, to strike another empty haven.
Absolutely none of this rhetoric made any sense at all! Deny, deny, deny… in the face of the obvious.
Okay, obviously I missed something. But the clip only went for 1:15 and it stopped when Obama started to speak. Hrmmph!
It was the same for me, Michelle. All I heard from Obama was bah bah bah bah bah, then the clip stopped. I tried it a couple of times, but it was the same each time. That was in Firefox, and I didn’t try IE.
Well, that’s what you get for not watching it … LIVE … er, tape delayed as it was on the west coast. I just wanted to hear what they had to say for themselves.
After looking around the internet, it would seem that Hillary has even… hit the booze. Oh, my mistake; I should have said, “hit the boos.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Democrats_Boo_Hillary/2008/01/05/61984.html
Another interesting point, Obama’s twisted view of history, came up in last nights debate when he stated that it wasn’t the military surge that had been the cause of the decrease in violence in Iraq.
Not at all; he stated that obviously it was the election of the Democrat majority in Congress, causing the sheiks to see the wisdom of cooperating with the US because they could now discern the limited days of US military support. The “Gateway Pundit” recounts the moment here:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/obama-shows-audacity-to-exaggerate-make.html
Why does the video cut out their actual answers? Just watching the questions is pretty silly. . .
Ok, well after finding and watching, I can see why they would cut out the answers — they are all together too reasonable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YOl9ZFzPwk
Because a 1400-year conflict between two sectarian strains has not immediately dissipated these guys were right about quitting and letting the middle east dissolve into a bloodbath? That’s reasonable?
It’s easy to say that we shouldn’t have gone it, but that choice is no longer open to us. What to do now is the question under review, and these people – even if they’d been right four years ago (only Obama opposed it among the front runners) – it doesn’t mean they were right last winter.
“Because a 1400-year conflict between two sectarian strains has not immediately dissipated these guys were right about quitting and letting the middle east dissolve into a bloodbath? That’s reasonable?
There is another way to look at it. Namely that this 1400 year old conflict is not one that can be changed simply placing the US in the middle of it. Actually the duration of the disagreement proves significantly how flawed the particpants themselves ( the Arabs) are and why they need to fix their problems themselves. And until they rid themselves of Islam-the author of all of their miseries they will not.
Even if Iraq has zero violence from today onward-it will continue to be a marginal country in terms of value to the United States-except in terms of the natural resource that it will be able to sell to the United States.
There is no free ride here-the US pays a price for its continued time in Iraq. In terms of strained relations with the Turks, a hostile Iran on the Iraqi border, and strain on a force structure that is needed to support US policy in equally important places in the world.
And what does it say of the Iraqis-the Arabs we love so much- that after 5 years their country will still devolve into a blood bath if we leave. One of the things that astounds me in this discussion is that they still get a pass on their responsibility to take care of themselves.
An honest question for you – what do you feel is the best case scenario for the resolution of our involvement in Iraq?
Our number one issue must be to stymie radical Islam, and therefore the future of Iraq is extraordinarily important to us. If we can maintain the current trajectory of events in Iraq we have a real fine chance for a stable confedaration to emerge, for the country to use its burgeoning oil wealth to rebuild its economy, and to create greater opportunities for its citizenry than they ever had under Saddam.
Surely, Skippy-san, you can acknowledge the game-changing potential of such a success, even if you disagree on its likelihood.
Actually no, I don’t acknowledge that as a game changer unless it spreads to the nations on the arc of the Gulf and to Saudi Arabia. Its not going to because they like the currrent non democratic status quo just fine. And as long as Islam itself exists in these countries the chance of success is slim. Right now even if Iraq becomes stable-it does nothing to eliminate the radical forces that exist within Islam. They have already spread. They are moving like electricity to the next place the current takes them.
The more likely scenario? Iraq uses its oil wealth to make its Shiite majority richer at the expense of its Sunni minority-it employs TCN’s do all the hard work and like their Arab brethern elsewhere they wallow in an oil rich, very dysfunctional economy. The Kurds continue to create trouble and incur the wrath of Turkey. At which point the Kurds either withdraw entirely or Iraq uses its American trained army to overthrow its currently useless government and put a strongman in place-who hopefully will be a pro US strongman. Or not.
I’ve never accepted the “Iraq will light a democratic fire across the Middle East” hypothesis. These are Arabs-not Westerners.
Eric, the best case resolution is, to my mind at least, a democratic Iraq, secure in its own borders and no threat to its neighbors or the world. The least-worse case is 66% of the above. Honestly.
“There is no free ride here-the US pays a price for its continued time in Iraq. In terms of strained relations with the Turks, a hostile Iran on the Iraqi border, and strain on a force structure that is needed to support US policy in equally important places in the world.” – Skippy
Heh! The flaw in the premise; we do not have to be physically there to have all of those things occur. As they have been occuring since the early 70s. Exactly as you proscribe. Do you honestly sit there and tell me that Iran is only anti-US because we are in Iraq Skippy? Our relationship with the Turks is strained because we are in Iraq and we were all hugging and singing Kumbaya before we entered Iraq? Well damn, time for a group hug!
Hell Skippy, the Straits of Hormuz have always been a very, very dangerous place because of Iran. I’d have to say they are safer now because of our presence. That place will make your butt cheeks pucker at any time. Before our involvement in Iraq or no. To think that our involvement in Iraq is the big bad cause of all that is happening today is to ignore history and the true cause and effect. Regardless as to you how you feel about the ME, Asia, et al our presence IS a stablizing effect. It would be more so if we could keep seditious loud-mouthed politicians off the TV!
The strain on our force structure is of our own doing. Political “experts” stripping the military (i.e. Clinton, Rumsfled et al) and politicians jumping on the bandwagon to free those funds for their proverbial bridges to nowhere. You can’t have the pork money to buy more votes from a general population that is too stupid to take responsibility for themselves while placing financial security “given” them by government over freedom and the consequences of having it. If you build the military to where she needs to be, the vaunted Halls of Congress would have a collective meltdown. Add to that the improper direction money has been flowing into techies instead of boots by the military leadership and I doubt seriously if you can blame our “strain” on anything but ourselves.
Aw hell, what do I know, right? I’m just a dumbass BushRiecher that is too stupid to understand that we should just cut and run while pulling back to make the continental US an armed camp where we allow our enemies to dictate to us how we live our lives. Leave ‘em alone and they’ll just feed on themselves and give us a pass.
Your truck armor plated? Got kevlar? You’re gonna’ need ‘em!
The only hope we have is the same hope they had in the 20s and 30s fighting anarchists. It’ll take a world effort to eradicate the Islamofascists and we have to lead the way. As usual and not because we like it. 9-11 led us kicking and screaming into the reality that is our fight with Islamofascism. Oh well, some of us anyhoo.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 01/07/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.