David Broder, the keeper of the conventional wisdom, pronounces Obama's European tour a triumph and in doing so shows how upside down the Washington elite's world view is.
"Suddenly, long-standing Obama policies -- direct talks with Iran and a
16-month timetable for withdrawal -- seemed to be ratified by events."
Sorry, but this is so wrong. The 16-month timetable is ratified by the event of victory, a victory that we would not have if we had listened to Obama. His insistence that the surge had nothing to do with the victory we have achieved over al Qaeda, the Sadirists and the Sunni dead-enders. We have set up a democracy in the heart of the Arab world, a world that has had nothing but thug regimes since the end of the Ottoman Empire, and Obama thinks it is nothing.
Even more oddly, he thinks that the surge was so irrelevant to our success in Iraq that it is urgent we try it in Afghanistan.
And, as bad as the Bush administration cave-in on Iran is, sending a diplomat to sit in on talks with the other six parties on nuclear disarmament is hardly the same as inviting the world's leading holocaust denier to the White House for a can't-we-all-just-get-along sit down.
"He handled the expected question about his meeting with Gen. David
Petraeus by saying he perfectly understood the U.S. commander's
opposition to any timetable that would limit his options, but that as
commander in chief, he, Obama, would weigh Iraq's needs against those
in Afghanistan -- and also the domestic economy.
Lecturing the General about the need for more troops in Afghanistan while telling him, in effect, that the additional troops he employed in Iraq were irrelevant to the victory we have achieved may not make as much sense to the man in the street as is does to the man in the capitol. Moreover, a man that so clearly refuses to take responsibility for his own words never looks good asserting his own larger responsibilities. His response to the General's advice is simply underlying the developing story line of Obama's arrogance. Does it look like he is smarter than Petraeus or just that he thinks he is smarter? And doesn't it just look like he is sticking to his line because he is too arrogant to change a previous position? A position which he rather oddly reiterated before setting off on his fact finding mission.
To his credit, Broder admits as much: "On the other hand, his saying there was no way to know what would have
happened in Iraq if the United States had followed his advice to start
the withdrawal of troops two years ago and oppose the "surge" seemed
disingenuous. Obama still has trouble admitting when he is wrong."
But if Obama's troubles are, as Broder says, "mild compared to those of McCain," why doesn't Obama get a bounce out of the trip in the polls? Could it be that what the Washington elites hear as cool wisdom sounds to many Americans like callow self-congratulations?
"Suddenly, long-standing Obama policies -- direct talks with Iran and a
16-month timetable for withdrawal -- seemed to be ratified by events."
Sorry, but this is so wrong. The 16-month timetable is ratified by the event of victory, a victory that we would not have if we had listened to Obama. His insistence that the surge had nothing to do with the victory we have achieved over al Qaeda, the Sadirists and the Sunni dead-enders. We have set up a democracy in the heart of the Arab world, a world that has had nothing but thug regimes since the end of the Ottoman Empire, and Obama thinks it is nothing.
Even more oddly, he thinks that the surge was so irrelevant to our success in Iraq that it is urgent we try it in Afghanistan.
And, as bad as the Bush administration cave-in on Iran is, sending a diplomat to sit in on talks with the other six parties on nuclear disarmament is hardly the same as inviting the world's leading holocaust denier to the White House for a can't-we-all-just-get-along sit down.
"He handled the expected question about his meeting with Gen. David
Petraeus by saying he perfectly understood the U.S. commander's
opposition to any timetable that would limit his options, but that as
commander in chief, he, Obama, would weigh Iraq's needs against those
in Afghanistan -- and also the domestic economy.
It was a skillful answer, not rejecting Petraeus' views but asserting Obama's own larger responsibility."
I am not so sure that is how it comes off. Dismissing the advice of a man who has been proven right, a man who is telling you that your decision may cost the lives of American fighting men and women, is perhaps not that smart.Lecturing the General about the need for more troops in Afghanistan while telling him, in effect, that the additional troops he employed in Iraq were irrelevant to the victory we have achieved may not make as much sense to the man in the street as is does to the man in the capitol. Moreover, a man that so clearly refuses to take responsibility for his own words never looks good asserting his own larger responsibilities. His response to the General's advice is simply underlying the developing story line of Obama's arrogance. Does it look like he is smarter than Petraeus or just that he thinks he is smarter? And doesn't it just look like he is sticking to his line because he is too arrogant to change a previous position? A position which he rather oddly reiterated before setting off on his fact finding mission.
To his credit, Broder admits as much: "On the other hand, his saying there was no way to know what would have
happened in Iraq if the United States had followed his advice to start
the withdrawal of troops two years ago and oppose the "surge" seemed
disingenuous. Obama still has trouble admitting when he is wrong."
But if Obama's troubles are, as Broder says, "mild compared to those of McCain," why doesn't Obama get a bounce out of the trip in the polls? Could it be that what the Washington elites hear as cool wisdom sounds to many Americans like callow self-congratulations?
No comments:
Post a Comment