It is worth rehearsing Mr Obama’s emergence into the media spotlight two years ago, not so much for what it says about his undoubted political talents as for what it reveals about the US political system. Early in President Bush’s second term it was already clear, even to many of his supporters, that he had gambled boldly with his country’s prestige and self-belief, and lost. No whistle was required to start the race to find someone to rebuild those crucial components of democratic strength. By 2005 both main parties were canvassing dozens of potential candidates, noting experience and name recognition, but seeking more. In 2006, the national media started paying attention to the eloquent son of an African goatherd with a fervent following among Democrats in Illinois. His campaign to derail Hillary Clinton and become the first black president has since electrified the world.
Details of the delegate count no longer matter. This moment’s significance is its resounding proof of the triusm about America as a land of opportunity: Mr Obama’s opportunity to graduate from Harvard and take Washington by storm; the opportunity that the world’s most responsive democratic system gives its voters to be inspired by an unknown; the opportunity that outsiders now have to reassess the superpower that too many of them love to hate.
[i]Early in President Bush’s second term it was already clear, even to many of his supporters, that he had gambled boldly with his country’s prestige and self-belief, and lost.[/i]
I profoundly disagree, and I refuse to accept the premise of the question. President Bush did what he believed to be right and necessary. It has been long and hard and ugly, but when the Washington Post (the [i]Washington Post![/i]) runs editorials such as [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053101927.html?hpid=opinionsbox1]this[/url], it confirms my belief in the idea that I – we – cannot and should not concede defeat to anyone.
I don’t think the times article disagrees that Bush did what he believed was right. You can believe the earth is flat. Doesn’t make it correct.
You can believe the Iraqis will greet you cheering. But when they don’t, you have to rethink things. After the facts get revealed, its alright to change your mind. I don’t recall Bush admitting he was wrong.
Besides, whatever happened to “mission accomplished?” We did what we needed to do. The Iraqis are now responsible.
[i]I don’t recall Bush admitting he was wrong.[/i]
Despite heated popular rhetoric to the contrary, I don’t believe the President was wrong, so why should he admit to something that fundamentally is not true?
I’ve never understood the whole “mission accomplished” flap. It was a banner for the men and women of the USS Abraham Lincoln, returning home after accomplishing their mission in the Persian Gulf. That hyperventilating media bobbing heads would not understand the desire of a commander in chief to thank and congratulate the men and women under his command is their problem, not the President’s.
The larger mission in Iraq is not accomplished. It is beset with problems and obstacles, many of which come from Iran. The President was right to go into Iraq, he is right to stay and help guarantee a stable peace. Barack Obama will only ensure that all 4000+ servicemen and women died in vain.
#4, and the latest articles, even from the Washington Post (look for it next in the NY Times) show that the people of Iraq are taking over, leading the pacification and that al Queida and al Sadr’s militia have been minimized and are no longer near the threats they have been. Violence is way down across the country, and the ability of Iraqi forces to handle security has freed U.S. forces to go into other areas (like Mosul) and clean out the remainder of the Iran-backed insurgents. (Note the Iraqi security forces have total control of Basra now – no outside troops, according to the latest Wash Post article.) By election time, Iraq may no longer be an issue, which may not bode well for McCain.