My letter to Phil Carter, whose insights I used to admire, but now is lost to the Obama:
"All this linking of Mullens remarks with Obama in liberal leaning media is gratuitous and conveniently glosses over fact Obama's policy iterations re Iraq have all been dependent on electoral calculations. In state legislature he was fervently anti-war in keeping with his stridently liberal constituency; moving to the senate he moderates his anti-war sentiments considerably, often times making somewhat contradictory statements re the war depending on his perception of what electorate wanted to hear and his fear of doing anything too dramatic, ie politically risky; during presidential primary he again touted his anti-war bona fides in order to woo the ultra left wing of the party without whom he couldn't win the nomination; and now with general election in sights he tacks to the safe center again , not because it makes sense policy wise, but because it makes sense politically.
How Phil you jump from this mash of political expediency for the sake of personal ambition to suggesting that some well reasoned strategic integrity has brought Obama to this sublime point of consonance with military thinkers is - well, this is Obama propaganda, pure and simple, and quite frankly beneath you.
Obama's one chance, during his precipitous and fundementally superficial rise to the top, to exhibit true leadership and courage and insight was lost when he opposed the surge, virtually the only intelligent policy enacted during the six long years of war. So you're giving him credit for what exactly? Stating the obvious that Iraq is improving and Afghanistan getting worse? We're just getting rid of a president who cynically exploited the low expectations of a gullible public - you're really that intent on electing another one?"
"All this linking of Mullens remarks with Obama in liberal leaning media is gratuitous and conveniently glosses over fact Obama's policy iterations re Iraq have all been dependent on electoral calculations. In state legislature he was fervently anti-war in keeping with his stridently liberal constituency; moving to the senate he moderates his anti-war sentiments considerably, often times making somewhat contradictory statements re the war depending on his perception of what electorate wanted to hear and his fear of doing anything too dramatic, ie politically risky; during presidential primary he again touted his anti-war bona fides in order to woo the ultra left wing of the party without whom he couldn't win the nomination; and now with general election in sights he tacks to the safe center again , not because it makes sense policy wise, but because it makes sense politically.
How Phil you jump from this mash of political expediency for the sake of personal ambition to suggesting that some well reasoned strategic integrity has brought Obama to this sublime point of consonance with military thinkers is - well, this is Obama propaganda, pure and simple, and quite frankly beneath you.
Obama's one chance, during his precipitous and fundementally superficial rise to the top, to exhibit true leadership and courage and insight was lost when he opposed the surge, virtually the only intelligent policy enacted during the six long years of war. So you're giving him credit for what exactly? Stating the obvious that Iraq is improving and Afghanistan getting worse? We're just getting rid of a president who cynically exploited the low expectations of a gullible public - you're really that intent on electing another one?"