Friday, July 18, 2008

Obama Becomes Bush

Victory in Iraq. What does it look like and how is it defined? Barack Obama thinks he knows and said so in his speech, "A New Strategy for a New World," July 15, 2008. For the first, time a prominent Democrat has said 'Iraq' and 'victory' in the same sentence without adding 'run away, run away!'

At some point, a judgment must be made. Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don’t have unlimited resources to try to make it one. We are not going to kill every al Qaeda sympathizer, eliminate every trace of Iranian influence, or stand up a flawless democracy before we leave – General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker acknowledged this to me when they testified last April. That is why the accusation of surrender is false rhetoric used to justify a failed policy. In fact, true success in Iraq – victory in Iraq – will not take place in a surrender ceremony where an enemy lays down their arms. True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future – a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge. That is an achievable goal if we pursue a comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis stand up.
Whoa! He's good. I've never heard it explained like that before.

In a policy statement, National Strategy for Victory in Iraq, President George Bush explains what he means by victory in Iraq.

As the central front in the global war on terror, success in Iraq is an essential element in the long war against the ideology that breeds international terrorism. Unlike past wars, however, victory in Iraq will not come in the form of an enemy's surrender, or be signaled by a single particular event -- there will be no Battleship Missouri, no Appomattox. The ultimate victory will be achieved in stages, and we expect:

In the short term:

An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy.

In the medium term:

An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential.

In the longer term:

An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.

An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.
Whoa! He's good, too. Sounds alot like Barack Obama. Except Bush had these thoughts in November 30, 2005, three years earlier than Barack Obama and his crack team of original thought makers.

Apparently, Obama is not just saying that victory in Iraq is possible and maybe is already happening, or perhaps, as Michael Yon writes, "the war has ended," but that George Bush was actually right after all.






The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

10 comments:

El Jefe Maximo said...

Indigo, you're behind the curve here. As the Democrats are soon going to tell us, Bush lost the war and Pelosi and Reid won it...

And if you believe that (insert bridge in Arizona metaphor here).

Besides, even if we did win it, the Demos will tell us it doesn't have anything to do with the real issues...free health care for snail darters and such.

Indigo Red said...

They are already telling us the real war is in Ahfganistan, not Iraq which is just a sideshow.

So, they are telling us to redeploy forces to the Afghan front. But, as the casualty rate increases in Afghnistan, it too will become an untenable and wrongheaded conflict because Afghanistan didn't attack us and neither did the Taliban. Al-Qaida attacked us.

Our friends on the other side will never get any smarter than they are today. If they have the al-Qaida address, I do wish they would share it with someone with a gun. But, then we know how they feel about guns.

Gayle said...

It's all so utterly frustrating, Indigo!

Excellent post, by the way. You've really pointed out Obama's idiocy. He flips one way and then flops another, but don't worry - one thing we can count on is that he will flip back!

dcat said...

Obama Becomes Bush

Oh yeah and obaabaa will have egg on his face when he returns from the ME too!

Het Iraq is GWB's victory! Now to scream extra loud so the democraps get sick of us!

Indigo Red said...

It is frustrating, Gayle. Tell a big lie often enough and people will believe it was the advice that Goebbels gave Hitler. We have been inundated with the "fact" that we went Iraq alone when we went with more nations than Bush I had in Kuwait; that Saddam was not making WMD when it's been demonstrated time and again; that al-Qaida was not in Iraq before the war when even AQ says they were there. Facts just don't matter.

Just today, Dcat, Obama has gotten credit from al-Maliki for coming up with the Out of Iraq in 2009 plan. Never mind that Bush has already said that current agreement runs out 12/08 and we would have to be mostly gone in 2009 depending on conditions.

Everything Bush has done, the Democrats are now taking credit. And there is no way to convince liberals of anything beyond their version.

Indigo Red said...

Per my last comment about Maliki supporting Obama's 16 month plan for redeployment, it's been reveales by an aide to Maliki that his words were mistranslated by Der Speigle.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/07/major-gaffe-media-mistranslates-maliki.html

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Exactly right, Indigo! It's "the Bush plan", under another name, now that success is noticeable.

What still inflames me is this: if we pursue a comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis stand up.

Iraqis have been standing up, and it's cost many of them their lives and the lives of their family members. It takes the average college student 4 years to graduate; how many years does it take to graduate from an officer's corp in the Iraqi army? The conflict in Iraq since OIF has only been 5 years, rebuilding under hostile conditions.

It is insulting to say Iraqis aren't "standing up" when they have been slaughtered by al Qaeda and insurgents for standing with the U.S.

I remember Oliver North also relaying a story about one Iraqi who had recently joined the poice force. North asked him what took him so long to join. The Iraqi said he was waiting because he wasn't sure which side would prevail, since it looked like there was a chance America might abandon Iraq. Who could blame him for that, given the lack of resolve from Congressional leaders (mostly democrats) back in Washington.

Indigo Red said...

Quite right, Word. Iraqis have done a magnificent job rebuilding their country while under fire. It's like what has been said of Ginger Rogers dancing with Fred Astaire. She could do everything he did, but she did it backwards and in heels.

Mike's America said...

How many times have I warned that Obama or the Democrats would try and steal credit for Bush's victory in Iraq?

You just watch!

Indigo Red said...

Ohhh, Mike, I'd think that would be more than 37 times.

Just yesterday Obama told us that more than 4000 Americans gave their lives for nothing in Iraq because the Iraqi Awakening Councils actually beat the enemy. America an dher military had nothing to do with AQs defeat.