Posts Tagged ‘Obama Iraq’

Obama’s Iraq Trip Unwittingly Convinces Americans That There is Peace in Iraq

July 25, 08

Excerpts of an article from American Thinker:

Obama trip press frenzy backfires
Ray Robison

Despite the media attempt to keep the presidential race coverage one-sided, an odd thing happened on Barak’s trip to Baghdad. A lot of Americans realized we are winning the war on terror.

Many have made note that as the surge succeeded and the bad news blissfully began to ebb, media coverage of Iraq thinned to a trickle. We knew it, but we couldn’t measure the effects of the media callousness towards our military until now. It now appears indisputable that for many Americans who don’t follow the news regularly there was a serious gap in what they believed was happening in Iraq and the reality of it.

Coinciding with the “Obama goes to Iraq” coverage comes a poll update by Rasmussen and released on July 23rd.

Over half of American voters (51%) now believe the United States and its allies are winning the war on terror, the highest figure recorded in nearly four years by Rasmussen Reports in a nationwide survey.

Only 16% now think the terrorists are on top, while 27% view it as a stalemate. Prior to this week’s survey, the number who believe the terrorists are winning had never fallen below 20%.

Last July, just 36% thought the U.S. and its allies were winning. At that time, an equal number – 36% -thought the terrorists were ahead.

42% now think the situation in Iraq will improve over the next six months. That’s up from 37% a week ago and 23% a year ago.

Only 23% now expect things to get worse in Iraq, down from 49% last July.

The gap also is narrowing dramatically between those who think history will judge the war in Iraq as a success – 36% now – versus those who think it will be viewed as a failure (39%).

The number of respondent in this reoccurring poll who answered that we are winning against terrorists jumped to levels not seen in four years, to 51% – now a majority.

Conversely, the number who considered al Qaeda and their ilk the victors dropped to a threadbare 16% of respondents, a new low by a wide margin.

For the first time in months, more Democrats (35%) also think the U.S. is winning versus the number who credit the terrorists with being ahead (26%), although nearly a third (31%) are undecided. Last week, only 27% of Democrats thought the U.S. was winning.

The percentage of Republicans who see the U.S. and its allies ahead also stayed roughly the same at 78%.

Thirty percent (30%) of likely Obama voters also see the U.S. winning, while 26% of them disagree.

And it just so happened that this poll was conducted the same day that Obama and his media entourage hit Baghdad.

Although it is not definitive, it is a strong indication that all the media hype and attention on this trip refocused the media lens on Iraq and that Americans saw a new picture there.

Ironically for Obama that new picture helps McCain by decreasing the common feeling of urgency which created the mood for immediate withdrawal at any price that Obama rode to the nomination.

For many who were afraid to read news about Iraq in 2008 (if they could find it) after the desperation felt in 2007, this new coverage opened their eyes. And these newly opened eyes just might be attached to ears that heard McCain claiming success and Obama dismissing our efforts in Iraq. The media attention has shown to an entirely new – admittedly previously disengaged – audience that McCain made the right call.

Some portray the success of the surge in McCain’s case in political terms of winning the battle but losing the war. They claim he will be a victim of his own success. They claim that his surge strategy and success in Iraq reduced the threat to our nation which negates his advantage on security issues. They might have a point.

But a counter balance to that is that many Americans genuinely did not know that we have essentially won in Iraq until now. They thought that Obama was delivering the straight truth to them on Iraq. But now they know he was being less than candid. The Independents and conservative Democrats now might see that he was not telling them the truth.

A picture says a thousand words and those pictures of Obama in Iraq with no body armor are telling a different story than what he has been selling to the American people. And it was a fawning media brazenly trying to tip the scales in his favor that made it happen.


The photo via Moonbattery:

This, even while Obama refuses to reconsider his opposition to the Surge (on a tip from hutchrun).

It’s the law of unintended consequences.

Remember that Obama routinely criticized the Surge and situation in Iraq as hopeless (link has more cartoons).

Whereas the truth is that there really is peace in Iraq.

See here for the Obamedia World Tour which has more cartoons.

Obama and the Surge

July 23, 08

UPDATE: 2010, and nothing’s changed.

Via Moonbattery, from Youtube is a short 1-minute demonstration of Obama’s history of supporting General Petraeus‘s Surge that has brought peace to Iraq:

And get this, Obama’s lackey Joe Biden now disses the Surge and claims the credit for peace in Iraq!


And now, a video describing how an Iraqi minister reveals how Obama secretly told them to keep the troops in Iraq until after Obama takes power, so that Obama can get the credit!

From Red Planet Cartoons:

Remember what Obama wanted to do: “Immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but we’ll send troops again if Al Qaeda appears there” (even though it already is there).

And see also this post about Obama’s trip hurting his election chances: Obama’s Iraq Trip Convinces Americans That There is Peace in Iraq

Following from The Ryskind Sketchbook which has the context:

Following from Day by Day:

Seven Reasons Why An Obama Presidency is Bad For Malaysia and the World

July 2, 08

UPDATE 5 NOV 2008: Below post is made more relevant because Obama is now President.

As the U.S. presidential campaign gets underway, it is a common assumption that Barack Obama as the next U.S. President would be better for us – the rest of the world apart from America.

A McCain presidency is viewed as merely a continuation of Bush’s two terms, with more aggressive posturing and military hawkishness. Whereas, an Obama presidency looks to be one of gentler diplomacy and dovish dialogue.

Thus around the world, many are hoping that Obama will win the U.S. presidential race this year.

However, I believe that an Obama presidency will actually be detrimental to the rest of the world, including Malaysia in a direct way. We have to look beyond the singular military power aspect, and focus on the many bread and butter issues.

Speaking on behalf of Malaysia and the world, here are the simple and clear-cut reasons why an America that follows Obama’s policies will be bad for us. (And please, don’t try and paint these as attacks on Obama’s race – they clearly are not.)

FIRST, Obama wants to withdraw troops from Iraq just as peace and stability are finally being achieved. This will free up the international terrorists who have been busy targeting (and being killed in the tens of thousands by) U.S. troops in Iraq for five years, who will then return their focus to less well-defended places like Southern Thailand, Bali, Bali again, Madrid, and the London Underground.

SECOND, another destabilization of Iraq would mean that its quickly recovering oil production will drop down to zero again. Just at a time when world demand for oil is outstripping supply, this will cause fuel prices to rise even higher. Iraq has a proven oil reserve of 112 billion barrels, behind only Saudi Arabia as the largest in the world.

THIRD, Obama opposes drilling for oil in and around America itself. If the U.S. opened up just an incredibly tiny, miniscule fraction of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), within 5 years they could begin extraction of a proven 10 billion barrels of oil. This would massively reduce American demand for imported oil, thus freeing up supply and driving down prices for us.

FOURTH, Obama strongly supports biofuels. A correlation has been found between biofuel production and rising food prices and food shortages. It’s basic common sense – food crops are practically being burnt in vehicular combustion engines, while food farmers are shifting to growing more profitable biofuel plants like jatropha. An Obama presidency actively encouraging biofuel demand and expansion would only excerbate this dire and immediate humanitarian problem.

FIFTH, Obama supports various measures to curb carbon emissions in the name of combating global warming. The debate over global warming’s factual basis aside, such measures have already cost several hundred billion Euro in economic losses in Europe. Trying to implement carbon capping schemes worldwide surely cannot help our own growing economies.

SIXTH, Obama has shown protectionist and isolationist attitudes regarding free trade. He has already stated his intentions to abandon the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Obama also supports continuing the U.S. Farm Bill which heavily subsidizes American crops, thus making them cheaper priced than locally grown crops. Such unfair trade practices make it impossible for smaller countries to compete against the U.S. economic giant.

SEVENTH, Obama’s various policies – no oil drilling, windfall profits taxes on oil companies, higher capital gains tax, carbon caps, SCHIP universal health care – are all forecasted by economic analysts to have a negative impact on the U.S. economy. America is Malaysia’s largest trading partner, in 2007 importing USD 32.6 billion (RM 106.4 billion) worth from Malaysia and exporting USD 11.7 billion (RM 38.2 billion) worth to Malaysia. Lessened U.S. demand will deeply impact Malaysia’s economy, as well as most of the world’s.

By contrast, McCain stands diametrically opposed to Obama on all the above policies, except for biofuels and carbon caps. Even on those issues, he is less enthusiastic than Obama is – a fact which gained Obama the endorsement of the biggest proponent of biofuels and carbon caps, Al Gore himself.

In conclusion, though McCain’s stance on Iraq and Iran may seem ominous to some, on the whole his policies actually stand to be far less damaging to the rest of the world than Obama’s.


See also related at this post on why some Americans won’t support Obama.

%d bloggers like this: