The Left is in a meltdown over the accusation by the McCain camp that Barack Obama doesn’t care about losing a war. What Ann Althouse (h/t Glenn Reynolds) says is true: it’s fair to conclude Obama would rather lose in Iraq than sacrifice his netroot support since he says he still wishes, even after seeing the success of the surge, that we hadn’t done it. The alternative explanation is that Obama believes we miraculously would have reached the same result without additional American troops. Does anyone believe that?

People pay for it? This is the very same paper which is always outraged to learn that failing companies are still paying mega-salaries to incompetent executives.

Why is it so surprising that MSM outlets don’t carry the news? Heck, they didn’t carry the reversal of our fortunes in a war for months and months.

Spot the similarities between Colombia and Iraq: Improved security gives political institutions time to take root and increases the confidence of democratically elected officials while bold military action pays off. And you risk slipping back into chaos if you lift security-enhancing efforts before the country “has control of its borders, and police departments, municipal governments and other government services are firmly established in all areas.” Engaging in direct talks with the sponsors of the terrorists wasn’t the key, strangely enough.

“Vague” doesn’t begin to describe it.

Really, what reason (other than to kowtow to Big Labor) is there for opposing the Colombia Free Trade Agreement? If ever there was a test as to whether a candidate can shove a special interest group aside in the name of national security and basic fair play, this is it.

Didn’t think it was possible for the MSM to look more immature, unserious, and frenzied than they have been covering the Obama Travels the Globe? Look here.

It’s not a convincing defense of Obama’s pro-Israel bona fides to say he sounds like Condi Rice. Really, people need to keep up.

Imagine if George W. Bush said something this illogical and inarticulate: “So the point that I was making at the time was that the political dynamic was the driving force between that sectarian violence. And we could try to keep a lid on it, but if these underlining dynamic continued to bubble up and explode the way they were, then we would be in a difficult situation. I am glad that in fact those political dynamic shifted at the same time that our troops did outstanding work.” And isn’t it amazing how the “political dynamic” changed at the very same time our troops were doing an outstanding job? Like magic.

McCain’s take is in this must-read interview. The nub: “[T]he point is that we are responsible for our records. I was right; Senator Obama was wrong. So, therefore, I think that I have more credibility on what the future should be, as opposed to Senator Obama, who, if he would’ve had his way, we would be very likely be involved in a wider war today if we’d have done what he wanted to do.” What about this isn’t correct?

The serial resume padder strikes again! For a guy who says Washington experience isn’t important he sure invents a lot of Washington experience.

What in the world gives Barack Obama the sense that the “window of opportunity” is open at all? Wasn’t that the mistake Dennis Ross acknowledged in Bill Clinton’s final push for a peace agreement — misinterpreting the readiness and ability of Israel’s negotiating “partner”? Are we to believe the Palestinians (Abbas? Hamas? Who are we even talking about now?) are more ready now to make a deal?

Ehud Olmert shared tips with Barack Obama about the peace process. Beyond irony. Beyond belief. (”First you manage not to win a war. Then you reward venal behavior with great symbolic steps like a prisoner exchange.”) Come to think of it, I’m sure they got along just fine. Let’s hope Olmert isn’t giving him tips about clean government.

Yeah, it really adds to the credibility of the “we’re not going over the top” argument when he also defends putting the most vociforous Obama fans in “straight news” roles. Puleez.

I think this headline needs updating.

Aside from getting his facts wrong, what is Wesley Clark doing still “surrogating” — hasn’t he done enough damage?

del.icio.us

Google

Facebook

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 24th, 2008 at 8:12 AM and is filed under Contentions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.