The Washington Times
  • Subscribe
  • RSS
  • Mobile Headlines
  • e-edition
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • REGISTER
  • LOG IN
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • WELCOME
  • Your Profile
  • Log Out
  • Front Page Image
  • Classifieds
  • Autos
  • Real Estate
  • Jobs
  • Special Sections
  • Customer Service
  • Home
  • News
  • Opinion
    • Editorials
    • Commentary
    • Columns
    • Water Cooler
    • Letters
    • Cartoons
    • Books
  • Sports
  • Culture
    • Home & Living
    • Family & Kids
    • Travel
    • Health
    • Washington Visitors
    • Books
    • Auto
    • TV Listings
    • Movie Listings
    • Death Notices
    • Entertainment
  • Communities
  • Rebate Shopping
    • Stores
    • Coupons
    • Daily Double
    • Promotion
    • How It Works
  • Photos
  • Podcasts
    • About Headlines
    • Audio and Radio
    • America's Morning News
  • Politics

    Voight, tea party groups plan last-minute protest

  • Politics

    CURL: Obama the Innocent stumps for health care

  • Politics

    Key Democrat Boccieri switches to 'yes' on health vote

  • Commentary

    TURNER: Our lawbreaking Congress

  • Energy

    Obama backs plan to legalize illegals

  • World

    Gitmo suspects allowed laptops

  • Politics

    Health-vote ally Nelson to get new VA hospital for Nebraska

Home » News » Election

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Shifting war rhetoric

Rate this story

Average 0.00
after 0 votes
Login or register to rate this story

  • Font Size -+
  • Print
  • Email
  • Comment
  • Tweet this!
  • Share
  • Article
  • Comments ()
  • Click-2-Listen

More Election Stories

  • Senate hopeful has WWE in her corner
  • Scott Brown team eyes new contest
  • Harlem's political dynasty in eclipse
  • Obama urges GOP to work with Dems

By

As Gen. David Petraeus comes to Capitol Hill today to testify before Congress on the current environment in Iraq, it's important to note how the Democratic presidential candidates — especially front-runner Sen. Barack Obama — will construe our now self-evident progress in Iraq.

Sen. Hillary Clinton and Mr. Obama, along with Democratic leadership in Congress and even some Republicans, have previously shown a disregard for the progress our nation has made in Iraq and the consequences of abandoning this important battlefield.

Mr. Obama's history on Iraq contains multiple mixed messages. His statements before the war mirrored those of the staunch anti-war voting bloc needed to guarantee his seat in the U.S. Senate. And now, running for president, he once again sides with fringe groups like MoveOn.org. But amid those stances, he has dabbled with reasonable policy.

The Iraq war was imminent in 2002, when then-State Sen. Obama was preparing to run for an open seat in the U.S. Senate. In order to win, he would need the support of Chicago liberals whose city was among the first in the country to approve an anti-war resolution. At the time, Mr. Obama even asked his campaign manager about the political ramifications of opposing the war before delivering his now famous speech.

In 2003, Mr. Obama said he would have opposed funding for the war had he been serving in the U.S. Senate at the time it was debated. However, this stance conflicts with his statements and actions in the years following, as he has both supported and opposed troop funding.

During the run-up to Mr. Obama's election to the U.S. Senate, his Iraq views changed yet again. In 2004, he said he didn't know how he would have voted on the Iraq war, and later claimed there was "not much of a difference between" his position and that of President Bush.

It wasn't until 2005, eleven months after becoming a U.S. Senator, that Mr. Obama made his first major foreign policy speech on Iraq. By then, many other Democrats had already made the points Mr. Obama was delivering.

The following year, Mr. Obama warned against an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, saying on the Senate floor, "A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy." He also made clear that a congressional edict to withdraw troops without taking into consideration the realities the troops were facing on the ground, could plunge Iraq "into an even deeper, and, perhaps, irreparable crisis." These stances reflect a senator at least grappling with the facts at hand.

Yet today, faced with a nasty Democratic primary, the senator adamantly calls for an immediate withdrawal, in his words, "Not in six months. Or one year. But now." Another example of Mr. Obama's shifting rhetoric on the war came in 2007, when he introduced legislation to withdraw combat troops by March 31, 2008. He did so despite admitting that once American troops left, insurgents could simply return to Iraq. By abandoning the battlefield, he would be enabling radical Islamists, who were waiting in the wings to take over the country if we left before empowering Iraqis to defend their own country.

As his record and rhetoric on Iraq demonstrates, Mr. Obama's position today is not in tune with the realities of the current war in Iraq. America deserves a president who will move this country toward victory, not regress to defeat. Our country deserves a president who understands the larger, and global, implications of the current war and has the experience to make continued progress in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The testimony on Capitol Hill today will provide a glimpse into the presidential perspective of all three candidates, and all of America — especially her veterans — will be watching with a discerning eye. Pointed questions are fine, but political pandering and posturing have no place in the Iraq war debate.

Pete Hegseth served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division and still serves as a captain in the Army National Guard. He is executive director of Vets for Freedom. David Bellavia served in Iraq with the 1st Infantry Division and is nominated for the Medal of Honor for his actions in Fallujah. He is a founder of Vets for Freedom.

Post a comment

There are comments on this article, submit your opinion!

Please login or register to post a comment

Top Stories

Most Shared

  1. KUHNER: Impeach the president?
  2. EDITORIAL: Obama surrenders gulf oil to Moscow
  3. Obama backs plan to legalize illegals
  4. RUSE: The Girl Scout Sex Guide
  5. TURNER: Our lawbreaking Congress
More Top Stories »
  1. Voight, tea party groups plan last-minute protest
  2. PRUDEN: Into the twilight zone
  3. EDITORIAL: WWII: The most racist generation
  4. Gitmo suspects allowed laptops
  5. STEYN: 'Deemocracy' in action

Most Commented

  1. KUHNER: Impeach the president?
  2. Obama backs plan to legalize illegals
  3. Gitmo suspects allowed laptops
  4. Voight, tea party groups plan last-minute protest
  5. Key Democrat Boccieri switches to 'yes' on health vote
More Top Stories »
  1. EDITORIAL: Obama surrenders gulf oil to Moscow
  2. Democrats make final push on health care
  3. EDITORIAL: WWII: The most racist generation
  4. TURNER: Our lawbreaking Congress
  5. Poll finds stubborn suspicion of census

Listen to Washington Times Radio

  • America's Morning News

    with John McCaslin

Question of the day

Do you want Congress to start over in terms of health care reform?

Blogs & Columns

  • Water Cooler

    Congressman claims health care bill protesters hurled racial slurs

  • Belief Blog

    Nancy Pelosi invokes the 'wrong' St. Joseph

  • Technology

    Ordering iPad is painless, except for the wallet hit

Advertising Links
TWT Store
  • e-edition
  • Print Edition
  • Weekly Washington Times
TWT Affiliates
  • Middle East Times
  • Golf
  • UPI
  • Arbor Ballroom
  • Washington Times Global
  • About TWT
  • Press Room
  • F.A.Q.
  • Work for TWT
  • Advertise
  • Sponsors
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map

All site contents © Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC.