[Political Diary - WSJ.com]
According to the Journal, Barack Obama is a skillful candidate, but also one who has never had to deal with foreign policy pronouncements on the fly before. Sometimes it shows. Last year he blundered by publicly declaring he would intervene in Pakistan if that nation's government didn't cooperate in the war on terrorism.
Says the Journal: “Mr. Obama stumbled again after he declared he wants to withdraw from Iraq but "leave enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy and diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda if it forms a base that the Iraqis cannot destroy."”
John McCain quickly leaped on the notion of keeping a "strike force" in Iraq and noted it was in direct contradiction to previous Obama statements that he would fully withdraw almost all troops. Mr. McCain had a series of questions: "I think it might be appropriate to describe exactly what that means. Does that mean 100,000 troops? Where are they based? What is their mission?"
Fox News reports that Team Obama responded that McCain had it all wrong. The strike force Obama envisioned would be in the region, not in Iraq. The only problem with that spin is that it's not what Mr. Obama said this week and it certainly doesn't square with his previous statements.
Look for an ongoing debate between the two men over just what presence in Iraq Obama envisions should he win the White House. Present evidence would indicate that both men see a substantial U.S. role in the country, but that Mr. McCain's stated goal is to achieve victory and Mr. Obama has a far more muddled outcome in mind.
Are you listening super-delegates?
According to the Journal, Barack Obama is a skillful candidate, but also one who has never had to deal with foreign policy pronouncements on the fly before. Sometimes it shows. Last year he blundered by publicly declaring he would intervene in Pakistan if that nation's government didn't cooperate in the war on terrorism.
Says the Journal: “Mr. Obama stumbled again after he declared he wants to withdraw from Iraq but "leave enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy and diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda if it forms a base that the Iraqis cannot destroy."”
John McCain quickly leaped on the notion of keeping a "strike force" in Iraq and noted it was in direct contradiction to previous Obama statements that he would fully withdraw almost all troops. Mr. McCain had a series of questions: "I think it might be appropriate to describe exactly what that means. Does that mean 100,000 troops? Where are they based? What is their mission?"
Fox News reports that Team Obama responded that McCain had it all wrong. The strike force Obama envisioned would be in the region, not in Iraq. The only problem with that spin is that it's not what Mr. Obama said this week and it certainly doesn't square with his previous statements.
Look for an ongoing debate between the two men over just what presence in Iraq Obama envisions should he win the White House. Present evidence would indicate that both men see a substantial U.S. role in the country, but that Mr. McCain's stated goal is to achieve victory and Mr. Obama has a far more muddled outcome in mind.
Are you listening super-delegates?
No comments:
Post a Comment