Romney, McCain and timetable

according to CNN

“The sharpest exchange in the debate came when Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was asked about the McCain campaign’s charge that he once said he favored a strict timetable for removing troops from Iraq.

Romney has consistently denied ever having backed a timetable and said McCain was taking a small portion of a quote out of context.

“It’s simply wrong,” Romney said. “By the way, raising it a few days before the Florida primary, when there was very little time for me to correct the record, falls in the kind of dirty tricks that Ronald Reagan would have found reprehensible.” But McCain, the Arizona senator who has strongly backed President Bush’s Iraq policy, accused Romney of hedging after public support for the war waned.”

OK, if it is so why state talker McCain would not say in a few days before the Florida primary that “Romney of hedging after public support for the war waned” instead of lying about Romney embracing a timetable foe withdraw ?

 McCain may be right that Romney should support surge back then in more clear words. I would agree with McCain in that.

But I am troubled by the fact that instead of criticizing Romney for not clear enough supporting the surge  , McCain start making stories about Romney accepting a timetable. Why in order to make a legitimate point McCain has to lie?

Is it the high moral ground on which McCain is making gains?

Obama.Variations on topics of populism: part one ” undo the war”

Listening to Barack Obama’s recent speech in Manchester New Hampshire (CSPN-2) :

Incredibly populist speech. He can beat even Edwards with his blatant populism.

If I will have time I will go point by point: education, healthcare , global warming; all accessories of populism are in place. Nothing really new in this populist talk.

History knows only two forms of implementation of populism: communism and fascism. Those who like populism have to choose on those above because there are no other historical options available.

 

Let me focus only on his favorite aspect : anti war ( or to be precise pro-defeat) position. His anti-war vote is essentially only thing that separates him from Clinton who is essentially same populist position in terms of universal healthcare and feeding money to educational system.

So let us see what Obama is saying about the war:

1.

” undo the war” slogan

He reminds us again and again that he was one who was against the war.

You were against war? OK! Let us for the sake of argument accept that you were right then. It does not mean that you are right now. Things changed between then and now. You cannot stay in the past .You have to adjust your political mind to new reality. You do not like this reality? So do I. But if you do not like a reality it does not mean that you can ignore a reality: there is no “UNDO” button on “ political computer”. You were against the war it does not mean that you can “undo“ that war. And this is what Obama essentially is saying: “I was against the war then , war was wrong then , and if you will elect me I will end the war ( read “ I will capitulate”)”.

He presumes, for some reason, that after he will surrender everything will be like it was before the war. He presumes that the war will be undone by electing him as a president. Very misleading and deceitful message.

2.

price of withdrawal: misleading out of the war versus misleading in the war

If Obama indeed is honest as he claims (the main message of Obama’s is that he is honest outsider unlike other candidates who are dishonest insiders ) he has to talk right now with his constituency about price of withdrawal which will be huge. But he is not talking about price of capitulation, he is talking only about how correct he was back then when he was against the war. ( his glorious moment as he thinks)

He either does not understand what he is talking about or he is disingenuous in order to just to be elected. Why he his not talking with constituency about the price of withdrawal ( capitulation)? He is saying that if he is a president he will talk honestly about problems. So talk to us about the price of capitulation! Repercussions of capitulation will be catastrophic or at least they serious enough to talk about if you are really honest, of course . Capitulation means broken commitments, slaughtered allies, forever brokent trust in USA as word worthy partner.

So my question to Obama is : OK we got your message , you were right then does it mean that you have an alibi for being wrong now?

3.

personal vanity of Bush versus personal vanity of Obama;

May be starting the war was caused by personal vanity of Bush. May be so . But it looks like that loosing the war is a goal dedicated to personal vanity of Obama. Just because he voted against war, war has to be lost . Otherwise … he was wrong! So hurry up Obama , obstruct American efforts to win the war! If the USA will win this war it iwill prove that you were wrong back then voting against the war! You cannot afford it personally , so you have to “ stop Bush” in his efforts to win the war.

We are paying price for mistakes of Bush . I agree with that .Many things were done wrong. But why anybody would think that “ ending the war “ ( read capitulation) just because Obama voted back then against the war, will solve any of our problems? Would capitulation be a monument to Obama’s vanity?

anti war or anti -victory ? “doves” or “‘vultures”?

It does not matter what you think about Newt Gingrich but he definitely can make a point. He made few appearances recently and did few keen remarks. But most interesting ones were on the FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace” , July 29, 2007 he formulated what I think absolute and only true : neither republicans nor democrats have a vision of enormous problems we are faced with: “the Republicans don’t recognize the scale of the performance failure of government as a system, and the Democrats are living in a fantasy land in terms of their policy proposals.”(fox news)

Why I am choosing republicans today? Because I do not want to be associated with those democrats who, as Gingrich said, are “deeply opposed to American victory and deeply committed to American defeat.” (fox news)

I always was thinking that there is not anti war movement today only anti-victory . it looks like democrats are rushing to quit before we really can win, just ” punish” republicans for starting the war. You cannot say better than Gingrich: “We are faced with evil opponents. Those opponents need to be defeated. And if General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker come back in September and say, “We actually can win this thing,” I want to understand the rationale that says, “No, we don’t want to let America win. Let’s legislate defeat for the United States.” (fox news)

It is not between doves and hawks anymore . People who want to end the war by withdrawal are not doves because the are not for piece. They are for defeat. By surrendering or by “legislating defeat” as Gingrich named it they are not going to save any lives by quitting. As Gingrich said

“What I would say to any Democrat who wants America to leave is quite simple. Millions of Iraqis have sided with the United States. They are known in their neighborhoods. They are known in their cities. If we abandon them, they are going to be massacred.” (fox news)

Another Cambodia is coming to mind. So those “doves” who by pro-peace (meaning anti-victory) demagoguery are imposing on us unavoidable casualties are really vultures, not doves .

Are Democrats palying like Bolsheviks ?

Democrats are calling for withdraw of troops. Democrats are OK with defeat in Iraq because the military defeat of the USA in Iraq means a political defeat of Bush, and, by proxy, defeat of GOP. So, military defeat of USA in Iraq will be a political victory for Democrats. Democrats have capitalized on anti-war sentiment in 2006, and they are going to bet on anti-war mood and general apathy of public during 2008 campaign. I do not blame Democrats for using anti-war demagoguery as a main tool in 2008 elections. After all, they have nothing else what separates them from GOP. They are similarly corrupted. And similarly incapable to achieve anything in Congress. So Democrats   rely solemnly on ending the war and on winning political power by ending the war. It is exactly what Lenin and Bolsheviks did during WWI: he used the national tragedy as an instrument of grabbing the power.

 

Anti-war versus anti-violence

I do not trust anti-war people. I am sure that their goal is political demagoguery.

If they are real anti-violence dedicated citizens, why nobody demonstrates against mass killings by terrorists ?

Can anybody refer me to at least one recent anti-terrorist demonstration? Does anybody know about at least one action by anti-war crowd, pacifists and other “anti-violence” talkers against suicide bombing and car bombing maniacs?

I challenge those who are calling us to stop “violence in Iraq” to explain why it is OK to ignore deliberate mass killings by terrorists and in the same time use casualties and violence as a “moral” excuse for accepting a defeat by withdrawal?

If they are anti-violence, why do they not think about those Iraqis who will be killed for sure if/when we leave? According to all experts there will be more casualties if we leave! So, if they really care about Iraqis, you should be for us staying there. Anyway, it cannot be both ways: crying for Iraqi casualties from suicide bombs and in the same time by damning them to even worse casualties.

These “anti-war” people are not “anti-violence” in general, they are “anti-violence by USA.”

This leads to at least three conclusions:

1. they are essentially anti-American because they are focusing exclusively and solely only against violence created by Americans
2. they are encouraging terrorism and violence against Americans because by ignoring terrorist violence they are creating a moral alibi for terrorists. And it is all terrorists need.
3. Being for withdrawal essentially means to be for escalation of violence. Being anti-war today means mean being pro-violence not against it.

 

 

So if we will withdraw for the sake of stopping violence it will be anti-American, pro-terrorist action encouraging further violence.

Prove me wrong