The Irony of A Retreat From Cut-And-Run:
Senator Obama's Policy of Retreat, Is Itself On The Run!

The sudden policy shift by Barack Obama yesterday in Fargo, ND, making it clear to observers that he was wrong about his specific insistence on precipitous withdraw from Iraq, should prove to be the loose thread in the fabric of Senator Obama's candidacy, and for one very basic reason. One or two good tugs on that thread and it will unravel, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he simply had no informed judgment at all on a matter of vital national security. Obama very publicly made his bed based on ideology, not fact, and now he has found out that he had short-sheeted himself.

The silly and oft repeated claim of his that he was the one who has showed "good judgment," was about all that the man with no experience had going for him -- other than his skill in the use of a teleprompter. Good judgment, though, is based on a measured consideration of all the evidence.

So now Barack Obama now stands before the public as perhaps the least qualified candidate for President in modern American history. Given yesterday's policy shift, the curtain is set aside, and Toto is now going to start barking at the heel of this heretofore Oz! "Pay not attention, pay no attention . . ." the Obamanians will insist. Yet we are all paying heed! Here on Independence Day!

What really compounded the error is that he had steadfastly refused to ever consider any the evidence suggesting otherwise! His was a willing suspension of judgment. Senator Barack Obama has never been to Afghanistan -- not even once. And, he has only been to Iraq on one brief occasion -- a year and a half ago, prior to the surge. In all of that time, he he also refused as well to meet with the American commanders on the ground, including General Petraeus. So here was this fancy lawyer who instead spat in the eye of all evidence to the contrary, remaining persistently ignorant of available information on which to make a more sober judgment . . . but who aspires to be our Commander in Chief!

Well, all politicians shift don't they? Has Senator McCain not shifted on drilling for domestic oil? Yes and yes. But Senator Obama has now blinked on his previously intentional and very theatrical effort to undermine our public opinion on a central element of our American foreign policy, without any real consideration of the facts.

This past primary season on the Democrat side, there was a contest of campaigns with only one recurring theme, one on which his campaign emerged triumphant over the rest of the nay-sayers, the "best" of those all urging their followers to engage in a willing suspension of disbelief, or -- if you prefer Shakespeare to Coleridge - in which they entreated their followers that "'tis your thoughts that now must deck our kings" -- in this case, bad theater all, that has now begun to collapse under the weight of untruthfulness.

The play, it seems, is not the thing today. The "poetry" of the Democrat campaign is collapsing under the plain prose of a job well done by our troops in Iraq. Barack Obama and the "surrender now" crowd were in complete denial, and suddenly they must face the music.

All along, future American lives, honor and national security were at the stake.

Judgment. It comes down to this. Had the Administration listened to, and acted on his oft-repeated insistence that we get out of Iraq immediately, that we stand down by a specific timetable, al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), would have quickly declared victory over the United States, and very likely have completely dominated the ensuing bloodbath and struggle for control of at least key portions of the country, as we retreated in disgrace.

Remember, Obama said . . . no . . . he demanded that we get out in 16 months. And he said that a year ago. Also remember this . . . he argued against and voted against the surge -- he would not have allowed it.

That, in spite of General Michael Hayden's assertion at the time:

"I strongly believe [that U.S. failure in Iraq] would lead to al Qaeda with what it is they said is their goal there, which is the foundations of the caliphate, and in operational terms for us, a safe haven from which then to plan and conduct attacks against the West."

So, as a result of the implementation of Obama's policy, the United States would now be in a substantially weakened strategic position in the Middle East, and indeed throughout the world.

As for AQI, they could well now be in a position to begin exploiting oil revenues to finance their next enhanced phase of terrorism -- al-Qaeda on steroids -- with a steady source (about 6 billion barrels) of revenue-producing oil under their control, enough to fully fund a generation of terror and fear. No more caves for those beasts! Bring bin-Laden and Zawahiri in from the cold! And, they would be in a position to militarily threaten any remaining allies we had as well. How long before they took up Ayman al-Zawahiri's call for AQI to initiate further attacks here on our homeland?

You think disruption of the oil markets is causing higher fuel prices as it is? Imagine if we had actually listened to the Democrats . . . and an al-Qaeda nation was now facing us as a result of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Murtha, et al., having forced our retreat?

Instead, AQI made the huge mistake of believing that they could defeat us militarily in this battle in the war on terror. They recruited huge numbers of Islamist fighters for that battle, who streamed into Iraq, and they redirected resources from Afghanistan to Iraq, only to be swept up in one of the great turn-arounds in military history -- they lost, and the entire AQI organization is now in a shambles, and scrambling for the exits.

As recently reported in The New Yorker by Lawrence Wright, even one of the original "masterminds" of the al-Qaeda cause, the mysterious "Dr. Fadl" is now daring to openly reject the underpinnings of terror as a means to their end, and he is claiming it is so on religious grounds.

Real leaders, like Senator John McCain, showed excellent judgment when the chips were down. They pressed the Bush Administration for the implementation of the surge strategy.

Obama vehemently argued against the surge at the time, and voted against it as well.

Last July, before the success of the surge had begun to emerge in the public consciousness, John McCain stood up on the floor of the Senate in the middle of the night to defend the continuation of the surge. His campaign for the Presidency was seemingly in disarray, and yet McCain stood firmly on principle.

Here was the conclusion to his speech (ht: Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters) that hot July night, just one year ago:

"I am privileged, as we all are, to be subject to the judgment of the American people and history. But, my friends, they are not always the same judgment. The verdict of the people will arrive long before history’s. I am unlikely to ever know how history has judged us in this hour. The public’s judgment of me I will know soon enough. I will accept it, as I must. But whether it is favorable or unforgiving, I will stand where I stand, and take comfort from my confidence that I took my responsibilities to my country seriously, and despite the mistakes I have made as a public servant and the flaws I have as an advocate, I tried as best I could to help the country we all love remain as safe as she could be in an hour of serious peril."

John McCain was right. Barack Obama was wrong, and is now himself in retreat.

This is no time to listen to someone without any experience or qualifications whatsoever, or who has no ideas -- except vague pie-in-the-sky talk, and the now haunting echoes of a demand that we cut-and-run like cowards when the going got tough.

We live in a real world; and this is not a play! Freedom and liberty are realities we Americans have helped define for our modern world. We have our own deck of leaders to think of kindly.

Today, we marked the reopening of the United States Embassy at the Brandenburg Gate with celebrations in Berlin. Former President George H.W. Bush who was in office at the time of the reunification of Germany, was there representing the United States. The embassy was closed during World War II by the Nazi regime. Following the war, the site was enclosed, cut off and demolished by East Germany on orders from the Soviets when they built the Berlin wall.

But we Americans and our allies never backed down during the Cold War era, even when the Soviets imposed the Berlin Blockade some 60 years ago, in June of 1948. A Democratic administration led by President Harry Truman initiated the Berlin Airlift, that succeeded beyond anyone's expectations, and ultimately the Soviets blinked, allowing an opening up of ground transportation to bring needed supplies to the people of that city. And Truman initiated the Marshall Plan to protect much of war-exhausted Europe from also falling under Soviet domination. We did not lose our bearings, and freedom from Soviet oppression finally emerged triumphant in Eastern Europe after Ronald Reagan symbolically stood on the spot, and challenged, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" All that, in spite of a long series of insistent tactical demands for American retreat over the years, by an increasingly leftward-drifting Democrat Party.

It is, therefore, not without a touch of irony to be able, here on this lovely July Fourth, to witness this latest professor of lefty incantations, this latest in personam representative of that long, dangerous leftward drift in the Democrat Party -- Senator Barack Obama -- suddenly being forced to "crawfish," as country folk used to say . . . to backslide from his specific and persistent demands for our immediate retreat in Iraq.

Meanwhile, he is insisting -- of course -- that nothing has changed! But please, mark your calendars -- something indeed has changed!

Where Are They Now?

The conventional wisdom, of course, is that Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama were the big winners, and that Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton were the big losers last night in Iowa.

But is that really so?

To some extent, all of those who participated last night were winners in the sense that they participated, and put it on the line.

In American politics, we love a guy or gal who mixes it up. And in modern Republican politics, one of the enduring frustrations is that our political leaders often seem too willing to give up in a fight, especially a policy fight. Too many of them appear to always be looking for the compromise position that will end the fight, rather than slugging it out to a reasonable solution. When I hear a candidate say, "I'm the candidate who can work with Democrats," it gives me pause! That is the earned rap on John McCain, and is why he is often jokingly referred to as Senator McKennedy.

On the other hand, the frequent weakness of Democrats, is that they never stop fighting, including amongst themselves -- "even for an eggshell."

Quick quiz! Name the Democrat contender this year who said -- or ever implied even once -- "I can work with the Republicans." Still thinking? Forget it!

Lurking in the background of this years Presidential race, is the perception that a few of the Republican players simply gave themselves a bye in the early rounds. If you take it to a baseball analogy, they literally announced in advance that they would skip the first couple of innings! Rudy Giuliani, and to a somewhat more limited extent, John McCain fit into this category. Rudy's strategy is to win the nomination, by selectively marshalling his resources for only certain key geographic fights, and his campaign manager gets a little testy when challenged as to why this doesn't send a message that he really doesn't care about the places he is already foregoing.

But what does it say about his willingness to fight the good fight in the General Election? What does it say about a Republican candidate who is unwilling to compete in a primary or caucus that is either exclusively limited to Republicans, or heavily weighted by them? You have to have a strategy in the general that will give you a victory in the battleground states. But in the primary?

There is more than a bit of perceived arrogance in that attitude, and it is surely something that will linger into the General. In fact, to some extent it contradicts Rudy's main claim, which is that he is best positioned to beat the Democrat nominee in the fall, who he has said will be Hillary Clinton.

Well, not in Iowa, you won't, Rudy! Nor in New Hampshire -- which actually has a small piece of coastline. They were both states that were competitive in 2004. Why should someone who wants to the the President of the United States not at least take a shot at a showing in all of the States? Rudy is being so selective, he even risks being derisively tagged as the "bi-coastal" candidate.

So, neither Romney nor Clinton were losers last night in their willingness to fight.

Who will win in New Hampshire on either side, is very much up for grabs.

As to the history of the "carry-over" effect -- Iowa to New Hampshire -- there is simply no real pattern there, except in the case of sitting Presidents running for re-election.

Remember former President Bush having the "big mo" coming out of Iowa in 1980? Ronald Reagan won in New Hampshire and the primary race was all but over. Remember eight years later in 1988 when Bob Dole won in Iowa, and then lost to Vice President George Bush in New Hampshire by eight and a half points a few days later? Dole left New Hampshire an angry man . . . "Stop lying about my record!" . . . and lost the race.

The Romney campaign now points out that no one has failed to obtain at least 18 points in Iowa and go on to win the nomination and the Presidency. Some will say that is splitting hairs a bit, but there is that factor of being willing to put up a convincing fight, even in defeat, that will factor into the overall primary campaign, and to some extent affect the general.

As for former governor Mike Huckabee, he had a very impressive but very focused victory, with the bulk of his caucus-goers being evangelical Christian participants. Last night on CNN Bill Schneider noted that Huckabee attracted only 14% of the non-evangelical participants in Iowa last night.

Here is from the AP story.

More than half of GOP voters said they were born again or evangelical Christians, and nearly half of them supported Huckabee, according to entrance interviews by The Associated Press and the television networks. Romney led among non-evangelical voters by 2-to-1 or more.

And from the CNN analytical coverage:

In Iowa, entrance polls of caucus-goers showed that 3 out of every 5 Republicans were self-described born again or evangelical Christians. Huckabee beat Romney by better than 2-to-1 in this voting bloc. Among the rest of Iowa's Republican electorate, however, Huckabee finished a distant fourth behind Romney, McCain and Fred Thompson.

In New Hampshire, social conservatives are not as influential. This potentially opens the door for Romney to regain the upper hand or for McCain to repeat his 2000 victory.

The Arizona senator will find himself in a two-front battle: against Romney for the hearts and souls of GOP voters and against Obama for the state's unpredictable and sizable independent electorate.

So, does John McCain go through this weekend boasting, "I'm the guy who can work with Democrats," in order to try to fight for those independent voters with Obama?

Or, is he now the guy between Mount Monadnock and a hard place?

Looks like it's time to head north and get a closer view!