Obama Would Be Happy With A “a messy, sloppy status quo” in Iraq
I had to laugh when I ran into this Obama blurb on Iraq. I mean, what else can I expect from a man who governs his world according to the lowest common denominator. I guess Obama is just a sloppy seconds kind of guy. He never seems to set his sights very high at all. This is a man whose vision for America will decimate our wealth instead of increase our wealth making capacity.
Obama is a man content to kill an infant dangling between it’s homicidal aborting mother’s legs rather than assign the infant the dignity of personhood. This is a man who thinks that babies are punishment, homosexuals and transgendereds are just great wholesome folks and who would rather put America’s space program on hold so he can cater to crack whores and thugs in the eternally screwed up ‘hood - on your redistributed dime. So it isn’t at all surprising that he’d have no higher vision for Iraq that accepting a “sloppy status quo.”
This quote was taken from The Institute of Policy Studies, described by David Horowitz as “America’s oldest left wing think tank [which] has long supported Communist and anti-American causes around the world.” So, no doubt, Obama felt right at home.
Sphere: Related ContentBarack Obama asked one good question, but undermined his position with his own refusal to call for complete withdrawal of troops. Obama asked Crocker, “if we were able to have the status quo in Iraq right now without U.S. troops, would that be a sufficient definition of success? It’s obviously not perfect. There’s still violence, there’s still some traces of Al Qaeda, Iran has influence more than we would like. But if we had the current status quo, and yet our troops had been drawn down to 30,000, would we consider that a success? Would that meet our criteria, or would that not be good enough and we’d have to devote even more resources to it?”
Crocker’s answer: “Senator, I can’t imagine the current status quo being sustainable with that kind of precipitous drawdown.”
Obama’s reply: “No, no, that wasn’t the question. I’m not suggesting that we yank all our troops out all the way. I’m trying to get to an endpoint. That’s what all of us have been trying to get to. And, see, the problem I have is if the definition of success is so high, no traces of Al Qaida and no possibility of reconstitution, a highly-effective Iraqi government, a Democratic multiethnic, multi- sectarian functioning democracy, no Iranian influence, at least not of the kind that we don’t like, then that portends the possibility of us staying for 20 or 30 years. If, on the other hand, our criteria is a messy, sloppy status quo but there’s not, you know, huge outbreaks of violence, there’s still corruption, but the country is struggling along, but it’s not a threat to its neighbors and it’s not an Al Qaida base, that seems to me an achievable goal within a measurable timeframe, and that, I think, is what everybody here on this committee has been trying to drive at, and we haven’t been able to get as clear of an answer as we would like.”(Source) [ed: emphasis mine]
- What Will We Hear From Iraq Once Obama Rules?...
- The Bile of Michelle Obama’s Discontent...
- Would-be Commander-in-Chief Obama Corrected by Those He’d Presume to Lead...
- Permalinks, Malicious Scripts and Barack Hussein Obama....
- Barack Obama Inspires Greed, Envy and Sloth...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
This entry was posted on Friday, May 30th, 2008 at 1:23 pm and is filed under Elections, Exposing the Left, Obama-debacle, RINOs and Socialist News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
"Conjure magic for them and they'll be distracted. Take away their freedom, and still they'll roar. The beating heart of Rome is not the marble of the Senate. It's the sand of the Coliseum. He'll bring them death... and they will love him for it."
