Conservative Wanderer

“A troubled and afflicted mankind looks to us, pleading for us to keep our rendezvous with destiny; that we will uphold the principles of self-reliance, self-discipline, morality, and, above all, responsible liberty for every individual that we will become that shining city on a hill.” — Ronald Wilson Reagan

Daily Archives: 7 February 2009

A Reasonable Iraq Plan For Obama

Over at Contentions, Jennifer Rubin notes a WaPo OpEd by the Iraqi Ambassador to the US, in which he says, in part:

Those who had descended upon Iraq to defeat the United States through terrorism, initially finding favor and support from the “rejectionists,” have themselves been rejected by the Iraqi people. Their strategy to ignite a sectarian civil war has failed. And though they still pose a threat to security, those extremist Islamists were comprehensively and strategically defeated in a Muslim country, a development of profound significance.

The elements in Iraq who thought that they could dominate and create a new form of dictatorship with the trappings of democracy have discovered that they must accept the principles of power sharing.

Rubin then comes up with a 3-step plan that, if Obama is wise, he’d accept, as it manages to offer something to both sides:

This should be an easily embraceable formulation for the Obama administration: 1) The elections were a success; 2) The violence has diminished but the U.S. still has a critical role to play; and 3) The risk and cost of a precipitous withdrawal can easily be avoided by, as the Ambassador describes,  “joint consultantions” in accord with the status of forces agreement to determine the appropriate speed of the drawn down of forces.

Note, please, the antiwar folks get their draw down, but without the Al Qaeda or other Islamoterrorist takeover of Iraq that us hawks fear if there is a hasty withdrawal.

Given Obama’s post-election steps on Iraq, including keeping Bush’s SecDef Gates, I really don’t have much difficulty in seeing the President embracing this policy, although he’ll probably put it into his own words. If he does, I’ll be glad to admit that he got this one right.

Obama: Spending = Stimulus

Via NRO, we have this transcript of part of the President’s remarks Thursday evening:

THE PRESIDENT: Then there’s the argument, well, this is full of pet projects.  When was the last time that we saw a bill of this magnitude move out with no earmarks in it?  Not one.  (Applause.)  And when you start asking, well, what is it exactly that is such a problem that you’re seeing, where’s all this waste and spending?  Well, you know, you want to replace the federal fleet with hybrid cars.  Well, why wouldn’t we want to do that?  (Laughter.) That creates jobs for people who make those cars.  It saves the federal government energy.  It saves the taxpayers energy.  (Applause.)

So then you get the argument, well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill.  What do you think a stimulus is?  (Laughter and applause.) That’s the whole point.  No, seriously. (Laughter.)  That’s the point. (Applause.)

There’s lots of different criticisms possible here, but let me just focus on one.

President Bush spent government money lavishly… I haven’t looked at the exact numbers but if his administration didn’t spend at a rate heretofore unprecedented, it was pretty close to it. Yet we still have a recession.

Now, follow the logic here (I know this is tough for some dyed-in-the-wool lefties to do): If spending is the solution to a strong economy, and Dubya spent like crazy, why do we have a recession?

This logic is pretty simple, and is probably at least part of the reason why public support for this bill is tanking. Ordinary people, who have to balance their checkbooks every month, know that if you get in a deep hole by spending too much, the way out of it is not to spend more.

And the more Obama tries to justify this, the further down his own personal stock will fall.