| NYT | 0 | |
| Miami Herald | 0 | |
| Don Surber | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| WaPo | Obama Urges Groups to Stop Attacks [on Dems who oppose ObamaCare] |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Change" You Can Believe In:
"Nixon didn’t try to do that. They couldn't control (the media). They didn’t try. [...] What the hell do they think we are, puppets?"
- Liberal opinion writer Helen Thomas, describing the Obama admin's penchant for heavily scripting public appearances & press conferences - 7/1/09
WaPo continues to demonstrate why it’s editorial pages are light years ahead of the NYT’s
1- They’re willing to concede that a too-quick withdrawal from Iraq will erase all of the accomplishments that have been made there and 2 – they’re telling Obama he needs to continue to soften his stance and revise his initial plans regarding Iraq in light of the new conditions on the ground there.
Of course, as I’ve noted before, Obama has to walk a tightrope with respect to his shall we say “evolving”  position on Iraq.  He doesn’t want to upset the Nutroots any more than they already are by suggesting that the results of the surge have produced more positive results than he was initially willing to acknowledge and thus meaning that our troops might have to stay there a little longer than he’s promised in order to ensure continued success and stability, but at the same time, as part of his general election strategy, he doesn’t want to be seen as downplaying the progress made by our troops and coalition forces to a public who still supports our troops even though the majority now say that the Iraq war was a mistake. Â
He has repeatedly said that he wants a withdrawal of all combat brigades within 16 months of when he would take office if elected but has made subtle shifts over the last few months by saying that he would take into consideration the facts on the ground based on what our commanders and generals would report to him should he be elected as Commander in Chief, indicating a supposed “willingness” to switch gears on how he feels about withdrawing.  In essence, he’s played politics with the war from day one with the anti-war left, and now finds himself in the dicey general election position of having to play both sides of the fence.  Â
While the WaPo may have hope that Obama will continue to reassess his position on Iraq, I don’t see his subtle shifts in on the way he feels about the war in Iraq as a good-faith effort to reconsider his initial view of the war.   It’s the same way I felt about Kerry: You can talk all you want to about wanting to be a good Commander in Chief but when all the chips are on the table you can’t convert that into reality if you’ve never believed the war was justified in the first place.  How can Obama truly be willing to revise to any significant degree his position on a war he has repeatedly said should have never been waged, and along with it a surge he has said for the last year and a half that he strongly opposed – the same surge of which he’s often played down the success?  Â
He likes to brag about his “judgment” but I simply don’t trust his “judgment” at all on this issue, considering all of the above. Saying one thing repeatedly during the primaries to appeal to your base while subtly preparing to shift gears for the general election with a more “softened” stance is not an indicator of someone who is willing to truthfully acknowledge the realities of what’s happening on the ground there. It shows he’s willing to say whatever he needs to in order to appeal to as many voters as possible, and that is in no way – in no way - a solid basis for which to conduct and execute a successful war.Â
RSS feed for comments on this post.
4 Responses to “WaPo continues to demonstrate why it’s editorial pages are light years ahead of the NYT’s”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Interesting indeed. Here we have an official Editorial (as opposed to an OpEd) by one of America’s leading liberal newspapers basically saying Obama’s position on the war was unrealistic and irresponsible. This is the position he used to secure the nomination.
The WaPo states that Obama is taking “a modest but real step toward a responsible position”. This is a direct admission that his position on the War in Iraq has been and still is irresponsible. No kidding.
While most of us are enjoying the howls of the KOS kiddies who were shamelessly used as saps by Obama, I wonder at what point more people will wake up and realize that Obama is a skilled but fundamentally dishonest politician who is willing to undermine national security and our national interest to get what he personally wants. It doesn’t seem like his actions have damaged his standing in the polls at all.
I congratulate the Washington Post for its continued wisdom. It remains my favorite newspaper source for accurate, unbiased journalism. And now let us look at Dr. Change:
Obama has been faced with the same problem that many previous politicians who have set themselves up as “change agents” have confronted: What to do with the true believers who have aided their ascent? Hitler and Stalin, being what they were, found an easy solution. Kill them.
In democracies, of course, it’s not that simple. FDR spent the first eight years in office proclaiming neutrality, and how he hated wahr, and would never get us involved in the messy affairs of Europe.
Cazart! On a dime (and before he was on the dime) he turned, and started advocating lendlease, and eventually of course “Dr. New Deal” became “Dr. Win the War.” He was perfectly correct to do so, and after Pearl Harbor had no choice anyhow.
And so here’s Obama, who ascended Disraeli’s greasy pole by marketing “change,” finally realizing that in order to remain there he’s going to have to dispose of those who, as is (or at least should be) now apparent to all, he considered merely as useful idiots.
He can’t kill them, so like FDR he has no choice but to co-opt them. And since, as we have seen, he outpoliticked the Clintons (and was not the Former First Wanker called the most skillful pol since FDR’s day, which makes Obama what?), I see little doubt that “Dr. Change” will successfully become “Dr. Pragmatic” without working up much of a sweat.
Well put Leslie. Let’s take it a step further.
Many of the key issues that Obama has “moved to the center” on are issues which extend discretionary Presidential powers in one way or another. FISA obviously does. Flexibility on troop withdrawals does. Faith based initiatives allow for discretionary constituent spoils (Reverend Wright et alia).
Now, consider for a moment that Obama might feel he has this thing won. …
Good point, DaMav. Funny how that works–guy on his way to the White House suddenly realizes he wants more discretionary power, not less.
When was the last time you heard a president say, “ooh–that’s too much power for me. Give it to Congress!”
Yeah, Obama feels he has it won, and the way things are going, I can’t blame him for thinking it. But there’s plenty of time left, even though McCain doesn’t exactly seem to know what to do to turn things around.