Take That!
Libs crow about Shinseki, Obama’s slap in the face to the hated Bushitler regime … at last! But first, libs voice concerns about Obama. Politico:
Liberals are growing increasingly nervous – and some just flat-out angry – that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices.
Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil. He’s hedged his call for a quick drawdown in Iraq. And he’s stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts of the left.
Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new boss looks like the old boss.
“He has confirmed what our suspicions were by surrounding himself with a centrist to right cabinet. But we do hope that before it’s all over we can get at least one authentic progressive appointment,” said Tim Carpenter, national director of the Progressive Democrats of America.
OpenLeft blogger Chris Bowers went so far as to issue this plaintive plea: “Isn’t there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration?”
…
Obama is asking for patience – saying he’s only shifting his stance on some issues because circumstances are shifting.
Yeah, he got elected, woke up and asked himself, “What was I thinking!?!” Kind of renders this NYT editorial, “The Deluder in Chief,” a little ironic:
We long ago gave up hope that President Bush would acknowledge his many mistakes, or show he had learned anything from them.
Never mind that he did both, repeatedly. Mark of a great president. It’s gotta be getting pretty bitter over there, seeing their guy go all Bushy. So far the honeymoon’s still on, though.
Anyway, here’s ThinkProgress crowing about Shinseki, claims if he had his way, there’d be fewer wounded vets to care for. Maybe, maybe not. Big on how he’s a wounded combet vet himself, which is great. Hopefully he’ll do a good job seeing to it the war wounded get the care they need. Exultant finger-pointing TP neglects to mention that what the libs have wanted ever since they discovered that war is hard is not more troops in Iraq, but fewer. As in none at all.
Also, TP neglects to mention that as VA secretary, Shinseki’s job does not involve war policy. That’s being handled by a guy Bush hired.
Regarding the Shinseki prediction that “several hundred thousand troops” would be needed, it’s unclear the extent to which that is true. The Washington Post reports:
Three years later, Gen. John P. Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command and the main architect of U.S. military strategy in Iraq, told the same committee, “General Shinseki was right.” And in January 2007, President Bush ordered tens of thousands of U.S. troops back into Iraq to stabilize and secure the country.
Notably, Shinseki led the Army at the same time that Gen. James L. Jones, Obama’s pick for national security adviser, commanded the Marines. Both questioned Wolfowitz’s presumptions, before the war in Iraq commenced, about how the fighting would go, and they argued that the Pentagon was being too optimistic in its planning and should prepare thoroughly for worst-case scenarios.
In fact the surge’s ”tens of thousands” never came close to Shinseki’s “hundreds of thousands,” topping out around 160,000. It was a change in strategy that post-dated Shinseki’s tenure, but a correction of other mistakes. The idea that flooding Iraq with more troops would have thwarted an insurgency and meant fewer casualties is a bit of a stretch, given the kinds of problems the United States government as a whole, including the military under Shinseki’s command, did not adequately prepare for. Having more troops available for rotation is something that should have been done a long time ago, by expanding the size of the military, and would have eased the strain on the Army and Marines. Here’s a question for history to mull: if more troops had been available to be put in as occupation forces, how long before the aggressive and effective counterinsurgency approach would have been put into effect, as opposed to more of the same? Sometimes it’s not how many you have, its how you use them.
NYDN Washington bureau chief DeFrank:
By restoring to grace a retired four-star general whose career was vaporized by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for daring to tell the truth, Obama has delivered a powerful symbolic statement that his government will indeed be different from the last.
I dunno. There is that Gates thing. DeFrank’s got an answer for that,though.
By rehabilitating him (Shinseki) - plus naming Hillary Clinton to run his diplomacy and keeping Bob Gates on as defense secretary - Obama has signaled he’s not interested in surrounding himself with toadies and yes-men.
A President-elect determined to withdraw from Iraq has also helped himself with veterans. Shinseki, the first Asian-American to run a military service, is lionized by wounded warriors for his grit in persuading Army brass to let him stay on active duty after losing part of a foot in Vietnam.
OK, symbolic statement of change enhances the strong statement of non-toady anti-yesmanism signalled by keeping Bush’s SecDef. (Someone please tell DeFrank that Obama’s parsing his determination to withdraw from Iraq these days).
Meanwhile the right’s been wondering mainly what color berets VA employees will have to wear.
Hotair re the winter of lib discontent, They get fooled again! Yeah, for now …
Topics: Obama, media, military
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 11:16 am on Monday, December 8, 2008
One Response to “Take That!”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
December 9th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
[...] Continue reading . . [...]