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

Did Obama Give McCain a Gift?

Senator Obama seems to has given his opponent, Senator McCain, some fodder for tonight's speech in the former's much-anticipated interview with Bill O'Reilly. From Abe Greenwald at the Commentary Mag Blog:

From Barack Obama’s upcoming interview with Bill O’Reilly:

I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.

Oh, some people anticipated the surge’s success, or at least anticipated the possibility of its success. In fact, I even have a name for Barack Obama: John McCain. Pushing George W. Bush for an increase of 20,000 troops back in 2006, McCain wrote, “The question is one of will more than capacity. If we are not willing to provide the troops necessary for victory, however, victory itself will be impossible.” What exactly does “the troops necessary for victory” mean to Barack Obama if not anticipation of the surge’s success? What Obama failed to see in Iraq was that victory wasn’t about “wildest dreams,” and Strangelove delusions, but about commitments requiring the toughest decisions a leader can face.

During this election, there has been a lot of talk about putting country before oneself and vice-versa. The most glaring (and offensive and dangerous) example of any candidate putting themselves before their country comes in Barack Obama’s refusal to acknowledge the determining importance of the surge and thus his own fallibility. His take: Yes it worked, but I wasn’t wrong to oppose it–because I opposed it. Now, let me tell you how I’m going to win in Afghanistan . . .

Comments (17)

Dr. Beckwith,

This just cements Giuliani's point last nite:

Look at just one example in a lifetime of principled stands -- John McCain's support for the troop surge in Iraq. The Democratic Party had given up on Iraq. And I believe, ladies and gentlemen, that when they gave up on Iraq they were giving up on America. The Democratic leader in the Senate said so: "America has lost."

Well, if America lost, who won? Al Qaida? Bin Laden? In the single biggest policy decision of this election, John McCain got it right and Barack Obama got it wrong.

If Barack Obama had been President, there would have been no troop surge and our troops would have been withdrawn in defeat.

Senator McCain was the candidate most associated with the surge. And it was unpopular.

What do you think most other candidates would have done in that situation? They would have acted in their own self-interest by changing their position.
How many times have we seen Barack Obama do that?

Obama was going to take public financing for his campaign, until he didn't.

Obama was against wiretapping before he voted for it.

When speaking to a pro-Israel group, Obama favored an undivided Jerusalem. Until the very next day when he changed his mind.

I hope for his sake, Joe Biden got that VP thing in writing.

SOURCE: Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Speech at the RNC


What I am interested in at the moment is whether McCain's statement here was actually genuine:

An announcer then claims that “as president, John McCain will make abortion illegal,” before playing an exchange on "Meet the Press" in which McCain told moderator Tim Russert that he favors “a constitutional amendment to ban all abortions.”

SOURCE: OBAMA AD SLAM McCAIN ON ABORTION RIGHTS
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13103.html

Are you kidding me?

No one has offered a constitutional amendment to make abortion illegal, aristocles. Now, there was a human life amendment that would have included the unborn under the 14th amendment. But that would not prohibit abortion per se. For all that the 14th amendment requires is that the state consider all of the human beings under its jurisdiction persons with certain rights in relation to their government. So, you could say that if the human life amendment were to pass, one could have an abortion if and only if it does not result in the death of the unborn.

So, technically, such an amendment would not even overturn Roe v. Wade, since Roe only requires that the state permit a woman to terminate her pregnancy. It does not say that she has a right to the death of the fetus.

Although abortion is certainly a very important issue it is in reality a nonfactor in this election. While I am personally against abortion I don't think it is my place or anyone elses to tell someone I've never met NOT to abort a fetus. While the Repuclican Party is often associated while far right views on the prolife issue, in reality most Republicans view the issue the same way I do. If Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, it will be no time soon.
We all ought to look around and realize that out of control government spending should be the major campaign issue. You cannot increase government spending ala B. Hussein Obama's proposals in times of near recession. To do so would lead to far greater economic collapse than we've seen since 1940.

You should have seen CNBC today -- an Obama Economic advisor claimed that the new 50 billion dollar stimulus package Obama is advocating is significant since "it will save 100 million jobs"!

I'm sooo glad Mark Haines attacked that Obaman henchman on this point, asking him about the stimulus package that was passed -- how many jobs did that exactly create!


Candid,

Are you kidding me?

You should be asking Obama that -- apparantly, he took it so seriously, he had an entire ad on it, making it a rallying cry to his Pro-Abort Cult!

Thomas,

I have a hard time understanding how anyone can be against abortion personally but not think it's their place to tell anyone else not to do it. What is it about abortion that you are personally against? Do you just find it distasteful? Isn't it because it's the killing of a human being, and thus immoral?

Either you're personally against it because it's immoral (and thus we should tell other people not to do it just like we should tell people not to steal or not to murder or not to commit adultery), or you just find it distasteful, but not a moral issue. Can I ask which of those positions you take and why?

Did Obama Give McCain a Gift?

Apparently not;
WASHINGTON -- Army Gen. David H. Petraeus has recommended that President Bush postpone sharp troop cuts in Iraq until next year, delaying a large-scale shift of combat forces to Afghanistan and reflecting concerns that widespread violence could return to Iraq.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-troops5-2008sep05,0,2266372.story

But, Lindsay Graham will give Obama one if he keeps hysterically and implausibly claiming; "Victory".

While I am personally against abortion I don't think it is my place or anyone elses to tell someone I've never met NOT to abort a fetus.

Ah, so you're a liberal.

While I am personally against murder I don't think it is my place or anyone elses to tell someone I've never met NOT to commit murder.

Ah, so you're a liberal.
You are the subtle one, aren't you!

While I am personally against murder I don't think it is my place or anyone elses to tell someone I've never met NOT to commit murder.

Hey! That was my Berger tactic on a whole other thread not too long ago!

Regardless, it does make the point though.

"While I am personally against abortion I don't think it is my place or anyone elses to tell someone I've never met NOT to abort a fetus."

What if someone said, "While I am personally against torturing children for fun, I don't think it is my place or anyone else's to tell someone I've never met to NOT torture a child for fun."

Now, you may say, "Hey Beckwith, but children are persons." Yes, they are. But that means that the above announcement, if we are to think of it as a moral principle, begs the question.

By the way, what's the difference between being against something and being personally against something? Can someone be against something for someone else?

See, I actually like posting here when I'm part of a ruthless mob ganging up on someone else. I wonder what that says about me?

"I wonder what that says about me?"

operatio sequitur esse

operatio sequitur esse

smartass.

"If Barack Obama had been President, there would have been no troop surge and our troops would have been withdrawn in defeat."

And had Al Gore or Barack Obama been president in 2003, we wouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place and we would be up thousands of troops and a couple of trillion dollars. McCain was on the invade Iraq bandwagon early and was dead wrong.

"Victory" isn't the issue and thosr discussing the surge in those terms are showing a certain detachment from reality. We should recall that the purpose of the surge was to buy the Iraqi government time to get things together. That has not happened.

That violence has been reduced is great but that was the result of a number of factors, some of them predating the surge, and not the surge alone.
The value of the surge is still not known; if iraq becomes a Shite theocracy or reverts to strongman rule, the surge will simply be a case of throwing good money after bad. That Iraq was going to be a AQ state was always a fantasy.

"And had Al Gore or Barack Obama been president in 2003, we wouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place..."

No reason to believe that about Gore as his Administration unleashed Operation Desert Fox and brayed about how it weakened Hussein's regime to the point of collapse. Beset by the impeachment proceedings, Clinton-Gore lacked both the energy and credibility to underwrite an invasion.

Add the Democrats zeal to be seen as tough guys, and the historical fact that prior to Bush Sr. every war this ever country fought the past 100 years was undertaken by Dems, and your claim is easily dismissed.

As for Obama, his advisors are all recycled Clintonites and his many vacillations should not be mistaken as signs for prudence. But, if you really believe Obama marks a change in foreign policy, then explain what his position is on plans that call for consolidating our 106 bases in Iraq to 58. Otherwise, put the pom-poms down.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/21/AR2005052100611_pf.html

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.