What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

What, no change?

From Peter Wehner at the Commentary Magazine blog, Contentions:

In an interview yesterday with Senator Obama, ABC’s Terry Moran listed just a few of the by now seemingly endless data points demonstrating that the so-called surge, which Obama opposed at the time it was announced, is a success. Moran then asked this (excellent) question: Knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?”

Obama’s answer was, “No.”

This must surely rank as among the most misinformed, ideological, and reckless statements by a presidential candidate in modern times. The McCain campaign should do everything they can to make Obama pay a high price for it. That one word answer, “No,” should be advertised in bright neon lights. It should become Exhibit A that Obama not only doesn’t have the “judgment to lead;” he has now supplied us with evidence that few people possess judgment as flawed as his.

Read the rest here.

I wonder what the citizens of America's 57 states will think of this. Perhaps they will reflect on how the U.S reacted to the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor.

Comments (17)

I think if asked, Obama would know that the United States has never had an atom bomb dropped on one of its naval bases. Still, repeatedly misspeaking in this way (I have never been so tired I would refer to 57 States) indicates a certain insouciance about facts, at least when speaking.

Via Kevin Drum, roll that tape:
February 2006: Muqtada al-Sadr orders an end to execution-style killings by Mahdi Army death squads.
August 2006: Sadr announces a broad cease-fire, which he has maintained ever since.
September 2006: The Sunni Awakening begins. Tribal leaders, first in Anbar and later in other provinces, start fighting back against al-Qaeda insurgents.
March 2007: The surge begins.

Since the surge was a response to ethnic cleansing, it is also important to mention that by the time it was implemented, there were around two million that were internally displaced along with countless dead. In other words, much of the damage was already done. I will give Petraeus much deserved credit for implementing a counterinsurgency strategy, which should have been done years ago had anyone in Washington been paying attention.

The problem for war supporters is that they don't have any plans for the future beyond saying "the surge worked." They forget it was supposed to create breathing room for political reconciliation which has still not happened. Whatever happens in the future of Iraq, it is and should be up to the sovereign Iraqi government, not to politicians in Washington.

Ah, so there are Republicaths on this blog after all....

A military escalation in an already unjust war? Yeah, that works.

There are also Vox-Nova-tian heretics on the blog, but who's complaining?

Also, opposing Obama does not make one a Republicath.

Heck, there are genuinely Pro-Life folks who are neither Republican nor Catholic who oppose him.

I thought at first that Beckwith would bring some intellectual heft to this site. Instead we get a parade of YouTube clips and now links to Little Green Footballs.

I meant to say, "more intellectual heft", there is plenty here, but some of us cannot get enough.

Frank, you don't have to put up with that. My $.02.

I thought at first that Beckwith would bring some intellectual heft to this site. Instead we get a parade of YouTube clips and now links to Little Green Footballs.

If you don't appreciate Dr. Beckwith's recent/past contributions, that's no sufficient reason to insult the man. That's really uncalled for. Consider, if you will, that the man has charitably contributed a portion of his precious time from his more illustrious work just to contribute a post. I gather the same goes for most, if not, all the W4 folks here.

Moreover, there are any number of thought-provoking contributors in this ecumenical forum such as McGrew, Maximos, Zippy et al to satisfy any variety of genuinely interested intellects (even ersatz intellectuals), Christian or otherwise.

As for myself, I'm only here for the little green footballs. That's all.

If it's intellectual heft you want, then perhaps you should look to one of these fine institutions of higher learning in one of our 57 states. I understand that the University of Hawaii has a museum to honor the victims of the Pearl Harbor bomb. :-)

As for the surge, the war, and the justification of both, that's a topic over which reasonable minds may disagree. But Obama's comments post-surge are incomprehensible. Unless he thinks the surge was intrinsically evil--and in that case no consequences could establish its "success"--it is difficult to explain his intellectual obstinance on this matter.

Thomas, Thomas, I guess all I need to to do is make your comments a "you tube" clip in order to dismiss them out of hand. Don't confuse the canvas with the painting.

I must confess to having linked to LGF in some posts or other. But I'm less likely to do so as time goes by. It's losing such interest as it had as (as I once called it) a clearinghouse of information.

A military escalation in an already unjust war? Yeah, that works.

You break it, you bought it. You're equivocating on the term 'war.' What we've got now is a post-war clean-up action. We've devastated an entire country and we've got the responsibility to stick around until the average Iraqi can spend at least 12 hours a day with electricity, wouldn't you say? We've unleashed the forces of civil conflict, and I think it's only just that we stay long enough to see them put more or less back in the bag. Isn't there something in the Geneva Convention about that? You invade, you provide security. Your man Obama doesn't disagree. No way he's out in 16 months from January 20th, as he's already backing away from that promise. But you know all of this already.

Thomas, Thomas, I guess all I need to to do is make your comments a "you tube" clip in order to dismiss them out of hand. Don't confuse the canvas with the painting.

Ha! Never let it be said that Beckwith doesn't know how to handle a heckler. Perhaps he should give stand-up comedy a try, just in case the Catholic moral philosophy thing doesn't work out. "Have you heard the one about the Catholic who voted for Obama..."

I assume everyone knows that McCain has recently committed a series of gaffes - some of them real whoppers. I won't list them. But since we apparently are going to be hearing about all the gaffes on one side, it's just worth reminding everyone that that's what's going on here.

It's interesting to see the sudden (pardon the expression) surge in commenters insisting that, of course, everybody misspeaks some of the time, and some people misspeak a lot, but that's no legitimate basis for criticism. How seldom we've heard that over the last 8 years.

Look, I am no defender of Bush on substance, or style for that matter. I couldn't be more bitter about what he's done. But the mocking he's received from certain quarters over simple misstatements--many of which have been wholly fabricated, i.e., they never happened but looked clever hanging on the refigerator--has been merciless and unrelenting. For so many of the same people to make sudden appeals to "charity," and pointing out the impossibility of daily impeccable public speech, is rather rich.

You break it, you bought it.

We most emphatically do not own Iraq.

You're equivocating on the term 'war.' What we've got now is a post-war clean-up action.

What we have now is a desperate attempt by the neocons to establish permanent military bases in Iraq. It isn't going to happen, they just have to accept that fact.

Isn't there something in the Geneva Convention about that? You invade, you provide security.

Yes, but four years after the invasion is way past the expiration date of that requirement.

Sage: No doubt, "the mocking [Bush has] received from certain quarters over simple misstatements ... has been merciless and unrelenting." But why think Keith (your presumable target) is one of those purveyors of past mockery, thereby falling prey to inconsistency? I hope you're not simply assuming he's inconsistent without evidence.

You break it, you bought it.
We most emphatically do not own Iraq.

Of course. That's not the point. The point is, you don't go bulldozing into a foriegn country, guns blazing and blowing up every power station in sight, and then blithely waltz out claiming to have achieved your objectives. Especially in this case, since the invasion was supposed to be a freedom mission. I don't see compounding mistakes with a subsequent denial of responsibility for them, which is precisely what an untimely exit does.

You're equivocating on the term 'war.' What we've got now is a post-war clean-up action.
What we have now is a desperate attempt by the neocons to establish permanent military bases in Iraq. It isn't going to happen, they just have to accept that fact.

Well sure. Whether or not it happens remains to be seen, I suppose. But the situation is not as simple as you paint it. Until basic services are restored to Iraq as part of the general character of the country, there will continue to be violence. And security is necessary for the re-establishing of basic services.

I

sn't there something in the Geneva Convention about that? You invade, you provide security.

Yes, but four years after the invasion is way past the expiration date of that requirement.

OK fair enough. But the invasion was so poorly conceived, in terms of having the necessary forces to maintain post-war security and possessing a workable political agenda with the tools in place to implement it, that we couldn't have possibly met the 4-year guideline. I'm not talking about letter of the law at this point. I'm talking about our moral responsibility to the citizens as an invading army. Bottom line, no way we're out of there within two years.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.