I was not fooled for one moment when President Obama announced that his agenda will save or create 2 and 1/2 million jobs. I know how to quantify the creation of jobs, but how can anyone possibly document the number of jobs saved? News flash – they can’t. Statements like these guarantee his success. If Obama’s spending programs create jobs, he can claim success. If his programs fail to create a single job, he can claim success; and if there is an overall job reduction, he can still claim success. Even if 1 million jobs are lost, he can claim 2 and 1/2 million jobs were saved.
On Friday, I was pleasantly surprised by his announced plans to “end” the war in Iraq. But, again, Obama never really stands on firm ground. Let’s analyze what he said. During his Camp Lejeune speech, he announced: “After we remove our combat brigades, our mission will change from combat to supporting the Iraqi government and its Security Forces as they take the absolute lead in securing their country.”
This is not a new idea, and it certainly isn’t Obama’s. As a matter of fact, this has been the intention of the Bush administration and Gen. Petraeus for some time. In his briefing to the Congress last spring, Gen. Petraeus presented the following chart:
By April of last year, America’s involvement in combat operations was already on the decline. Let me take a moment to clarify some of the terms in the chart. “Leading” meant that American forces were leading and executing combat operations. “Partnering” meant that American forces were involved in combat operations, but Iraqis were leading. “Tactical overwatch” meant that American troops were not involved, but American advisers accompanied the Iraqi troops into combat operations. Finally, “Operational” and Strategic” overwatch indicated that no American forces would be involved in combat.
There is absolutely nothing new about President Obama’s announcement. He has just filled in some of the dates that Gen. Petraeus hesitated to predict last April. By Aug. 10, 2010, we will have moved to the bar on the graph that contains no red or orange, and by the end of 2011, we will be off the chart completely – a timetable mandated by the Status of Forces Agreement, negotiated by the Bush administration.
The president went on to say: “As a candidate for president, I made clear my support for a timeline of 16 months to carry out this drawdown. …” Here is where he lost me. I clearly remember candidate Obama stating that he would remove all American forces in 16 months. I also remember his votes against the war while he was a senator. Yet, on Friday, he tap-danced around his campaign promise with surprisingly slick rhetoric.
After we remove our combat brigades, our mission will change from combat to supporting the Iraqi government and its Security Forces as they take the absolute lead in securing their country. As I have long said, we will retain a transitional force to carry out three distinct functions: training, equipping, and advising Iraqi Security Forces as long as they remain non-sectarian; conducting targeted counter-terrorism missions; and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq. Initially, this force will likely be made up of 35-50,000 U.S. troops.
And, they won’t be entirely removed until the end of 2011 – 35 months from his inauguration. This is a sound plan, but nothing like what he promised to win the presidency. I wonder what kind of mandate he would have had without his anti-war supporters.
More Democrat doublespeak
I sat watching the Sunday morning news programs and was in awe of Obama’s cronies. When asked to comment on the 9,000 earmarks in the Reed/Pelosi omnibus spending bill, they all had the same response: “That’s last year’s business.” I beg to differ. Nine-thousand earmarks are clearly “this year’s business.”
Here is what Barack Obama has to say about earmarks on his own website:
Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama’s Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.
The vote is supposed to be on Wednesday – 72 hours from now. Have any of you seen definitions of any of the 9,000 earmarks? I haven’t. Is this what we are in for? Will Democrat doublespeak become the norm in the Obama administration? What happened to a change we can believe in?
