Homestead mailing list

[bob ford <bobford79 AT yahoo.com>]

>From the WSJ , referencing an  article in the NYT rag, all concluding what 
>those of us who were honest with ourselves said all along.  BO already 
>acknowleding thousands and thousands of troops will remain in Iraq for who 
>knows how many years. 

Watch for some of his swooning cheerleaders to once again make excuses.  Just 
start calling him "Bush light" .......................

--------------------------------------------------------------------

'Muted by Reality' Now that Obama has won, we could be in Iraq for a hundred 
years.

 
By JAMES TARANTO

Barack Obama was elected president a month ago and does not take office for 
another 6½ weeks. But his most fervent supporters already have reason to be 
disappointed in him. Witness the headline of a "news analysis" in today's New 
York Times: "Campaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by 
Reality."

"As he moves closer to the White House," the Times reveals, "President-elect 
Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops 
will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise 
to pull all combat forces out within 16 months." That itself is a big "if," 
as the Times acknowledges:

That status-of-forces agreement remains subject to change, by mutual 
agreement, and Army planners acknowledge privately that they are examining 
projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 
and 50,000--and some say as high as 70,000--for a substantial time even 
beyond 2011.
We may be in Iraq for a hundred years! The Times notes that "there always was 
a tension, if not a bit of a contradiction, in the two parts of Mr. Obama's 
campaign platform to 'end the war' by withdrawing all combat troops by May 
2010":

To be sure, Mr. Obama was careful to say that the drawdowns he was promising 
included only combat troops. But supporters who keyed on the language of 
ending the war might be forgiven if they thought that would mean bringing 
home all of the troops.
Hmm, here is what the Times editorial page said about the subject when it 
endorsed Obama back in October:


The unnecessary and staggeringly costly war in Iraq must be ended as quickly 
and responsibly as possible.
While Iraq's leaders insist on a swift drawdown of American troops and a 
deadline for the end of the occupation, Mr. McCain is still talking about 
some ill-defined "victory." As a result, he has offered no real plan for 
extracting American troops and limiting any further damage to Iraq and its 
neighbors.
Mr. Obama was an early and thoughtful opponent of the war in Iraq, and he has 
presented a military and diplomatic plan for withdrawing American forces. Mr. 
Obama also has correctly warned that until the Pentagon starts pulling troops 
out of Iraq, there will not be enough troops to defeat the Taliban and Al 
Qaeda in Afghanistan.



It is awfully generous of the Times to forgive Obama's supporters for 
believing what they read in the Times.

It must be said that not everyone is surprised to find Obama's campaign 
promises "muted by reality." Those of us who were paying attention to reality 
before Nov. 4 never took Obama's pledge to flee Iraq seriously. Although it 
is especially repugnant to seek political gain by promising to lose a war, it 
is also common for presidential candidates to make unrealistic promises, 
especially on foreign policy, and disregard them once elected. (Remember how 
George W. Bush was going to stop "nation building" and Bill Clinton was going 
to get tough on the Red Chinese?)

Obama thus is carrying on a long tradition of making empty and irresponsible 
promises. While he may deliver victory in Iraq, his war against cynicism has 
already been lost. .......................