The Price Of Victory

McCain was right about the surge, Obama was wrong, and now Obama is the one getting a boost from our current success in Iraq.  We have been there before!

Winston Churchill lost the general election in May of 1945 despite a personal approval rating of 83%.  The BBC explains that he had focused on leading the nation rather than his own Conservative party.

And closer to home, Bush 41 won in Iraq and lost to Bill Clinton eighteen months later, his approval rating down from the low 90's.

McCain can be yet another kinda-conservative running under the conservative banner to be right about a war but lose anyway.

THUNDER FROM THE RIGHT:  Need a cup of coffee?  Donald Douglas has it.  [Now he does; link fixed.]

Comments

[GMax]

The amazing thing is the reporter for Politico, who I do not recognize, indicated that Obama raised more than $1mm on 5 separate days but did not think to question at all the one day total of $25mm. Given that Hill raised $4mm in the month and $1mm a day is a very very good day, $25 mm is just not believable. Something is very very fishy. And it aint fish.

[centralcal]

$25 million in one day, the last day - I agree it is not believable.

[Pagar]

Clarice, I thought you knew, Scary Larry says he doesn't have the tapes. It's some evil Republican that has the tapes. My money is on Lee Atwater-he is in a good place to keep a secret.

[Cecil Turner]

I'm not sure why the chicken-and-egg Awakening analysis has such fascination for the left. (Perhaps it's because it provides another opportunity to deny Petraeus and surge architects their rightful credit.) But in any event it's rather silly oversimplification. For those who care, the genesis is probably the Nov, 2005 COIN efforts in Ramadi:

In November 2005, American commanders held a breakthrough meeting with top Sunni chiefs in Ramadi, hoping to lure them away from the insurgents' fold. The sheiks responded positively, promising cooperation and men for a police force that was then virtually nonexistent.

It eventually caught fire (after fits and starts), mostly due to Al Qaeda atrocities against the locals. By early 2007, the Jazeera Council was working with the Coalition for various classic "build" COIN functions like adult literacy (primarily to support police recruiting).

[Cecil Turner]

As Roggio notes, the effort expanded into the umbrella "Anbar Awakening." Some of us might even remember when it was a big problem:

It is an experiment in counterinsurgency warfare that could contain the seeds of a civil war — in which, if the worst fears come true, the United States would have helped organize some of the Sunni forces arrayed against the central government on which so many American lives and dollars have been spent.

And, of course, Petraeus's involvement with such programs predates all this:

In October 2003, when I first met Petraeus when he was commander of the 101st Airborne based in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, he was implementing a counterinsurgency strategy with this central principle: Winning over local Sunni tribal leaders was a higher priority than military action. The sheikhs were given economic aid and jobs to get the economy restarted, and their men were hired into a new local security force.

Not sure why the Obots want to spin all this as luck, or pretend US COIN strategy had nothing to do with it, but it smacks of revisionist CYA to explain their own clueless maunderings of the time. One thing I'm fairly sure of . . . Obama/Reid/Pelosi/Murtha/Kennedy had absolutely no positive effect on any part of it.

[Barney Frank]

Do you believe this cock and bull story?

Sure. Things looked a little short for June so 10,000 ACORN nuts spontaneously cut BO checks. Solely to reward this display of public spirit George Soros and Peter Lewis selflessly donated $25,000,000 to ACORN. They're the new politics we've been waiting for.

[GMax]

All with the same misspelling of Obama's name as the payee, and in the same handwriting with the same blue inkpen.

[clarice]

Well, there is NO functioning FEC at the moment so anything can happen--only mcCain is playing by the rules, it seems.

[centralcal]

Okay - the story at Politico clears up that the $25 million (all small donations) came in throughout the month, NOT on the last day.

[clarice]

Apparently lots of contributions from overseas.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/obama-who-is-je.html>Osama Smith

[clarice]

Huh,cc?
"After locking up his party’s presidential nomination, Barack Obama’s fundraising operation came roaring back to life in June, generating more than a million dollars on five days, including a whopping $25 million that came in on the last day of the month"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080721/pl_politico/11905_1

[centralcal]

Clarice: Politico clarified....

"The sums were reported in disclosure reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. An initial summary of Obama’s donations posted on the FEC website Sunday night grouped all of his un-itemized donations of less than $200 on the same day – June 30th. That left the impression that Obama had an astonishingly good — $25 million – final fundraising day for the month and Politico made that the lead of this story.

Turns out, Obama raised nearly $4 million on June 30th, a healthy amount certainly. But the $21 million from the un-itemized small donors, which are those who are not named because they haven’t given more than $200, came in throughout the month and not on a single day. The FEC is adding an explanatory note to avoid such confusion in the future, said FEC spokesman Bob Biersback. "

[Jane]

Way OT - but....

Does anyone else recall a presidential candidate running for office, presuming he would be elected to two terms. I don't.

Obama's little ten year gaffe was the second time I've heard Obama say he assumed he would be president for two terms, the first being when he wanted to rent his house for the Olympics.

It's incredibly arrogant, and I think unprecedented.

[clarice]

Hey, Jane, it just gives more incentive to Hill and PUMA to help knock him off now.

[Jane]

So Fox News just reported:

The NY Times refused the McCain editorial on Iraq because IT DID NOT INCLUDE A TIME TABLE FOR WITHDRAWAL

[BobS]

Good forceful quote by McCain in Maine. Didn't the NY Times run a hit piece on McCain withing the last year about and improper realtionship with a lobbyist.

Carl Cameron says that the McCain doesn't mind having a war with NYT.

[PeterUK]

"The NY Times refused the McCain editorial on Iraq because IT DID NOT INCLUDE A TIME TABLE FOR WITHDRAWAL"

Anyone who gives the enemy a timetable is an imbecile.

[BobS]

on Fox: McCains reminds of the General d BETRAYUS ad in the NYT and that Obama refused to vote for the condemnation that caame from the Senate.

Boy, he seems really pissed off.

Good

[narciso]

Cluelessness is on all fronts, apparently, Slate's columnist on HBO's Generation Kill, which I've pointed out; sets to make Iraq a quagmire from the outset. Compares the Marines not to the cops on the "Wire" that
Simon & Burns, co-produced, but to drug crews of Marlo Stanfield: href<http://www.slate.com/id/2195528/pagenum/2>

[clarice]

With 49% of the population believing the media's in bed with Obama and animus toward the NYT at an all time high, I think picking a fight with the paper is a great McCain move.

[clarice]

I also think in our own "Fairness Doctrine" Act every blogger of every suasion ought to stand up for a free press by offering to run anything McCain offers which the msm refuses to print.

[fdcol63]

Had the Dems had their way in 2001, we'd have pulled out of Afghanistan before toppling the Taliban because of Ramadan, the "angry Muslim street", the "bitter Afghan winter", the millions of Afghans dying in "indescriminate American carpet bombing", and the futility of thinking we could win a war against the same Muslims that defeated the mighty British and Soviet empires.

[clarice]

CNN is running the entire McCain Op Ed. (good for them)http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/mccain.op.ed/index.html

And NRO's campaign spot catches Obama in another blooper http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGMxY2IxNzNhYzcwMmM5NTY5YjgxOGRkM2I1MTU0ODc=:>Palms to fireheads again
"In his interview with CBS News, Obama says:

Logan: Because you do have a situation seven years on into this war where Osama bin Laden and all his lieutenants and all the leaders of the Taliban, they’re still there. And they’re inside Pakistan.

Obama: Right. It’s a huge problem. And first of all, if we hadn’t taken our eye off the ball, we might have caught them before they got into Pakistan and were able to reconstitute themselves. Several times in recent interviews, Obama has referred to "taken our eye off the ball" in terms of the invasion of Iraq, which began in March of 2003. We don't know precisely when Osama bin Laden entered Pakistan, but it is generally believed that he escaped Tora Bora and crossed the border sometime in late November or the beginning of December 2001.

(Somehow the U.S. took its collective eyes off the ball to prevent an event that occurred in December 2001 by sending troops to another country starting in March 2002 for an invasion that began in 2003.

It's not as if the geopolitical challenges of sending U.S. troops into Pakistan suddenly appeared in March 2003. Once Osama crossed the border, the potential cost of pursuing him —i.e., a civil war in a country with nuclear weapons — became higher and the consequences became riskier.

Also note that CBS' Lara Logan forces Obama to concede that his oft-touted call to kill Osama bin Laden in Pakistani territory is actually current U.S. policy. )"

[Jane]

So Lanny Davis now says he supports finishing Iraq, and confesses to a pang of doubt about his war opposition when the Iraqi's went out to vote and raised their purple fingers in unanimity.

Pardon me while I barf. I am so sick of these democrats and their never ending situational ethics.

[clarice]

Hey, Jane, in a life or death battle who better to have covering your back? /sarc

[Jane]

It is simply unbelievable to me.

[PeterUK]

"Obama: Right. It’s a huge problem. And first of all, if we hadn’t taken our eye off the ball, we might have caught them before they got into Pakistan and were able to reconstitute themselves."

Yes indeed,"reconstitute themselves".Instant Jihadi,pour into a bowl add half a pint of goats milk,a handful of dates,mix well and microwave for two minutes.
Jihadis are made out of Soylent Green.

[clarice]

Didn't the NYT run the statement of the Unibomber and one of the jihadi thugs?
Did they ask that these statements "mirror" anyone else's?

I think the paper has finally dug it's own grave.

[fdcol63]

The title of Pinch Sulzberger's memoir:

How I Destroyed America's "Paper of Record" With Liberal Bias and Lies

[tina]

We can only hope this is the end for the NYTimes.

ABC now reporting that President Bush is taking his lead from Obama for his policies on NK and Iran.

The media is elevating Obama to god-like status which will in the end will result in his failure on 4 November.

The cult-like behavior of mainstream media is humorous at best, scarey at worst.

Michell Malkin has a t-shirt contest posted on her web site; funny entries. All about Obama world tour and his media puppets.

LUN

[Jane]

Someone should pursue the contribution angle.

[clarice]

The NYT is now soft shoeing it, noting they supported McCain for the Rep nomination and have previously carried his op eds--suggesting that they were just doing a little normal editing on his behalf,Jane.

[JM Hanes]

What really pisses me off is seeing Bush's "time horizon" cited by the press as movement toward Obama's position!

I finally put my finger on what really bugs me about Obama's grand excursion, though, when I read this piece at the Timesonline. He's acting like the president-elect, not a candidate who hasn't even been officially nominated yet -- despite the disingenuous Listening Tour disclaimers. Another article somewhere referred to Obama "holding talks" along the way. Sheesh. Timesonline provides another installment of the diplomatic obtuseness I mentioned earlier:

Lest there be any illusions about the desired target audience for Obama’s trip, the foreign media, including the BBC, have been left on the Tarmac. Only American reporters are on board “Obama One” as his plane heads from one country to the next.

He will have a 45-minute meeting on Saturday morning with Gordon Brown followed by a press conference, which Obama will conduct on his own outside Downing Street in a blatant departure from the usual protocol.

There will be no Brown at his side to spoil the No 10 backdrop for American voters, even though it would be unthinkable for a British prime minister to appear in the White House Rose Garden without the president.

Surely,"Obama One" is simply a journalistic flourish? Canada's National Post provided some coverage of his meet-up with Maliki -- but no surprises here!:

Mr. Obama did not mention his withdrawal plan to Mr. Maliki, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told reporters....

"This issue, we do not discuss... Mr. Obama did not speak about anything which concerns the Iraqi government because he does not have any official [government] capacity," Mr. Dabbagh said....

Mr. Dabbagh said Iraq had a vision of all foreign combat forces withdrawing by the end of 2010 but that this would depend on the security. There are more than 140,000 American troops in Iraq.

I think a lot of nuance may be getting lost in translation here, but I'm also wondering whether Maliki really has any idea just how big a set of U.S. domestic matches he's playing with or whether he's stalling because he's sized up Obama as a weaker reed than Bush, and a lot more easily led than McCain. A little sucking up could go a long way if Obama wins the election. I'd bet Obama got an earful of want list from Maliki, including multitudinous ways for the U.S. to subsidize his newly sovereign government -- with no bases or strings attached. It's bound to take a mountain of $$$ to stave off any potential, reputation-busting, bloodbath which might otherwise attend our departure, no? My inner anti-PC irony meter is taking a real swing at the idea of our first black president being extorted for guilt money by Iraqis.

In any case, I can certainly understand why Obama didn't bring up the withdrawal timeline. Why take any chances, when his campaign has already got a picture perfect quote that they'll be brandishing from now till the election -- regardless of anything Maliki might say differently in the interim. That was biggest campaign contribution since McCain's 100 years.

Think I ran across both articles above via Instapundit or HotAir.

[PeterUK]

"He will have a 45-minute meeting on Saturday morning with Gordon Brown".

The blind leading the blind.
Not sure what the solo Downing Street photo op is about.Gordon Brown is a dead man walking,his party has the lowest polls since Ug got booted out of the cave BC.If there were to be an election in ten minutes Brown would be down the road tomorrow.
So I'm not sure who doesn't want to be seen with whom.

[clarice]

Would be grand if they invited Galloway to join in that group hug.

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
Better still,Tony Blair,he and Obama could compare ears.

[JM Hanes]

Whoa, the Brits go all politically incorrect on us again. How long do you think those Hounds of War will get to go without their booties, Peter?

[PeterUK]

Jm Hanes,
It isn't a new thing,just something that doesn't get mentioned so as not offend public sensibilities.There is even a Victoria Cross equivalent for animals Dickin Medal for valour.
A subject dealt with,rather sensitively by Robert Heinlein in, IIRC "Starship Troopers".

[Flannigan]

Obama opposed the surge in Iraq, but thinks a surge in Afghanistan will work?

[narciso]

I missed a week of Newsweek, MSNBC, but then i wondered how much in the tank they could be for Barry Sunshine, that Onion piece notwithstanding. Well there's the cover right out of Norman Rockwell, "What Does Obama belief" There's an Isikoff piece about how all our emails, cell phones calls aren't safe because of the FISA bill, the Navy Postgraduate school is mulling a 're-deployment plan. Dahlia Lithwick,is showing
a paralegal is more legally entitled to her
column on the War Powers Act. Stuart Taylor
as legal moderate, is arguing for pardons ; possible war crimes prosecution re
interrogations practices. This is in contrast with the 60 democrats and General Taguba, who want war crimes investigations This is contrast to the Ron Moreau piece on McCains' jailer, saying he endorses McCain, but denies any rough treatment; he says he didn't need to torture anyone and he didn't. Bud Day, Paul Galante et al would disagree; but they're Swift Boaters so what do they matter.

[clarice]

narciso, How do you suppose Newsweek stays in business? I think its Dem ads. Honestly.

[Lee A. Arnold]

Soylent Red, i thought about it during a long day of work and I want to thank you for correcting my view of the surge. I believe that this small surge wouldn't have worked well without the Sunni Awakening and al Sadr's ceasefire, but also that the Sunni Awakening would have gone nowhere without Petraeus' handling of the situation.

I think if McCain explains it this way to the voters, he has a chance of picking up some independents and conservative Democrats, and winning the election. But he has to do well in the debates and the main issue for most voters appears to be the economy.