Taranto needs to get a new pair of reading glasses or something. Â As usual, he pulls a quote and then goes on to draw a conclusion not supported by the quote he pulled.
His whole point is to make a snide jab at Obama supporters who must feel sold out by Obama’s actions supposedly not living up to his rhetoric. Â But the quotes he pulls make it clear that Obama is trying to pull out all combat forces by 2011, even if a large number of non-combat Americans will remain in the country afterwards. Â One of the times quotes specifically discusses that this is essentially what Obama has ALWAYS been saying. Â Hardly a sellout there.
Then Taranto decides to get in a swipe at the NYT by bringing up their endorsement article from October, which he thinks(?) makes his point that the NYT was out there peddling the line that Obama was going to bring every last solitary troop home by 2011. Â But the plain text of the quote he pulls specifically mentions only a drawdown, and a beginning to pulling troops out. Â Neither of which make a very convincing case that the NYT was expecting a swift and total exodus.
I might be more inclined to give Taranto some slack if I didn’t feel like he was snickering into his sleeve at how clever he is while simultaneously either making bad leaps in logic or displaying some poor reading comprehension. Â
I’m inclined to give Mr. Obama no slack at all. He clearly stated that he would remove all combat troops from the theater within 16 months, or as quickly as safely possible. Instead, we will likely leave a considerable number of troops and combat equipment there for some number of years, and he knew this when he sold himself to the Leftists.
Americans who bought this also bought is "tax cut" plan, but you will see that wither just as Clinton’s promised middle-class cut evaporated after he was elected. And if you’re going to tell me that economic conditions have changed, then I’ll tell you that Obama failed miserably to foresee the problems created when previous liberal administrations mandated that home loans be given to people who couldn’t afford them - stupid policy from a party that panders to the masses to get elected, then screws them and everyone else over in the long term while they sit cushy in incumbency.Â
The fact is, like Clinton, he sold voters one thing and he will deliver something else. I knew that would happen, but I guess the electorate has to be reminded every 10 or so years that Democrats are at least as crooked as Republicans. At least Bush tried to accomplish the things he promised. Obama hasn’t even taken office and he’s already been exposed as another "lie to get elected" Dem.
A clear-eyed voter saw that Obama couldn’t pull us out of Iraq and that his tax plan was impossible to implement as most of the people he promised tax cuts to pay zero taxes.
People voted for hope and are now finding out that hope is intangible.
We will have troops, military equipment, and military bases still in Iraq the day Obama leaves office.
Bush was already pledging to draw down troops before the election. Those plans were on the drawing board well over a year before the election. And quite public.
It does indeed appear that the Obama administration will do nothing substantially different from the Bush administration. Which is absolutely fine by me. It makes me a tad cynical, but since the results are what’s right then I have to applaud it.
A great lesson in this, to me, is that rhetoric aside the country’s foreign policy really is remarkably stable over the decades, no matter who’s in office. Major changes are rather rare, and Obama won’t be a major change on anything but style. (And, I grant, style is not irrelevant.)
{ 7 comments }
Taranto needs to get a new pair of reading glasses or something. Â As usual, he pulls a quote and then goes on to draw a conclusion not supported by the quote he pulled.
What quote is he pulling out of context or improperly? I don’t understand.
His whole point is to make a snide jab at Obama supporters who must feel sold out by Obama’s actions supposedly not living up to his rhetoric. Â But the quotes he pulls make it clear that Obama is trying to pull out all combat forces by 2011, even if a large number of non-combat Americans will remain in the country afterwards. Â One of the times quotes specifically discusses that this is essentially what Obama has ALWAYS been saying. Â Hardly a sellout there.
Then Taranto decides to get in a swipe at the NYT by bringing up their endorsement article from October, which he thinks(?) makes his point that the NYT was out there peddling the line that Obama was going to bring every last solitary troop home by 2011. Â But the plain text of the quote he pulls specifically mentions only a drawdown, and a beginning to pulling troops out. Â Neither of which make a very convincing case that the NYT was expecting a swift and total exodus.
I might be more inclined to give Taranto some slack if I didn’t feel like he was snickering into his sleeve at how clever he is while simultaneously either making bad leaps in logic or displaying some poor reading comprehension. Â
I’m inclined to give Mr. Obama no slack at all. He clearly stated that he would remove all combat troops from the theater within 16 months, or as quickly as safely possible. Instead, we will likely leave a considerable number of troops and combat equipment there for some number of years, and he knew this when he sold himself to the Leftists.
Americans who bought this also bought is "tax cut" plan, but you will see that wither just as Clinton’s promised middle-class cut evaporated after he was elected. And if you’re going to tell me that economic conditions have changed, then I’ll tell you that Obama failed miserably to foresee the problems created when previous liberal administrations mandated that home loans be given to people who couldn’t afford them - stupid policy from a party that panders to the masses to get elected, then screws them and everyone else over in the long term while they sit cushy in incumbency.Â
The fact is, like Clinton, he sold voters one thing and he will deliver something else. I knew that would happen, but I guess the electorate has to be reminded every 10 or so years that Democrats are at least as crooked as Republicans. At least Bush tried to accomplish the things he promised. Obama hasn’t even taken office and he’s already been exposed as another "lie to get elected" Dem.
A clear-eyed voter saw that Obama couldn’t pull us out of Iraq and that his tax plan was impossible to implement as most of the people he promised tax cuts to pay zero taxes.
People voted for hope and are now finding out that hope is intangible.
We will have troops, military equipment, and military bases still in Iraq the day Obama leaves office.
Bush was already pledging to draw down troops before the election. Those plans were on the drawing board well over a year before the election. And quite public.
It does indeed appear that the Obama administration will do nothing substantially different from the Bush administration. Which is absolutely fine by me. It makes me a tad cynical, but since the results are what’s right then I have to applaud it.
A great lesson in this, to me, is that rhetoric aside the country’s foreign policy really is remarkably stable over the decades, no matter who’s in office. Major changes are rather rare, and Obama won’t be a major change on anything but style. (And, I grant, style is not irrelevant.)
It amuses me greatly when people believe what politicians say.
Comments on this entry are closed.