"What they're saying, in effect, is: "Kill our fellows tomorrow rather than the enemy today.
The above is the wisdom of Harry Flashman (see the full quote in the first entry today).
How does it apply to Barack Obama and leftists out there--indicating leftists have not changed much in more than a century?
Yesterday, Obama said that we would have to take "action" if al-Qaida seemed to be making progrees establish a base in Iraq--"to protect us here at home".
John McCain then "mocked" (despicable AP/AOL headline word) Obama for seemingly failing to realize that al-Qaida was ALREADY in Iraq, and that the whole purpose of the troop surge was to defeat al-Qaida in Iraq. After all, if Obama were truely aware of what has been going on in Iraq, was not his endorsement of "action" an endorsement of the troop surge?
Someone told Obama about McCain's comment. Obama responded with a lefitst slogan/bumper sticker, after saying "of course I am aware of al-Qaida in Iraq" but: "There was no al-Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain invaded Iraq."
Problem: the above does not address either McCain's point or Flashman's point. If we withdraw from Iraq, where al-Qaida is NOW operating, are we not setting up "killing our fellows tomorrow, instead of killing the enemy today." If we withdraw like Obama SEEMS to be saying we should do (while refusing to commit to doing so), and let al-Qaida build another "base" in Iraq, are we not setting our soldiers to be killed trying to do what is in our grasp NOW. The question is what we do NOW, and not whether we should have gone into Iraq. Obama's EVASION was an attempt to change the subject fromt he obvious illogic of what he had said. First he had said that we could not allow al-Qaida to make progress toward establishing a base in Iraq without taking "action". Then he said that he knwe al-Qaida was already in Iraq. Logically, that would mean that Obama SUPPORTED the troop surge (which McCain had consistently advocated for some time, in criticizing the Bush Administration). But Obama opposed, and is still opposing, the troop surge--opposing, in other words, effective "action" against al-Qaida in Iraq.
Solutioon: CHANGE THE SUBJECT to Bush's invasion of Iraq.
Problem: Obama was right the first time, as Flashman notes. We now have al-Qaida on the run. We are WINNING. To allow al-Qaida to regroup now means killing many of OUR soldiers later.
This is why many of us consider Obama dangerous. He gets away with saying the most outrageous things (his response to McCain received MAJOR "news" coverage, without much noting that McCain was RIGHT, or that Obama had not really aswered him.
By the way, al-Qaida probably WAS in Iraq before our invasion; it was just not a major presence. But that is not the main point. The main point is that SADDAM HUSSEIN was in Iraq when we invaded Iraq, and would still be there if we had not invaded Iraq. Has anyone asked Obama whether he thinks THAT would have been a good thing. Saddam Hussein had made Iraq a terrorist state, and supporter of terrorism--apart from al-Qaida. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a GOOD THING (again, Obama, are you saying it was a BAD THING?). More importantly, it is DONE. We now cannot leave let al-Qaida regroup to "kill our fellows again" because we fail to kill our enemies NOW.
Harry Flashman was right--immoral, womanizing bastard that he was. See George MacDonald Fraser's chronicling of the adventures of Harry Flashamn in the multiple books making up the Flashman papers. Unfortunately, modern lefitsts like Obama have not changed their willingness to "kill oour enemies tomorrow, rather than kill the enemy today." .