Free Frank Warner

In Berlin: Barack Obama still looks like a kid trying out for leading man’s role

Barack Obama did all right in his Berlin speech today, but he did seem a bit underwhelming. OK, I don’t have to be overwhelmed by a speech or a speaker to respect him, but something seemed missing.

I was looking at a pleasant man, a well-educated man who seemed just a little too thin in stature and experience to be behind that microphone, in front of such a huge and adoring crowd (and that was just the press corps).

I was happy Obama talked about freedom and I felt reassured as he reminded Europeans they have to begin carrying their share of the load in to defend democracy and stop genocide. I was a little annoyed that he praised Germany’s cut in CO2 levels, but failed to note that Germany’s energy policies have made that country dangerously dependent on Vladimir Putin’s natural gas.

Testing needed. But all in all, it was a friendly offering of America’s hand to Europe. In Germany where Turks still are viewed suspiciously, the sight of an African-American as the front-runner in an American presidential election also spoke volumes on the potential to move beyond bigotry.

Nevertheless, Obama had the demeanor of the skinny kid actor trying out for the role of a seasoned adult. He was pushing the leader’s tone a little too hard. He’ll get over that as he is tested over the years. Today, he was reciting Sheriff Andy Taylor’s lines but looking more like Opie.

Frank Warner

T. Boone Pickens against more oil supply? Against the Swift Boaters?

Timothy Egan is trying to say that T. Boone Pickens’ wind energy campaign, which declares “we can’t drill our way” out of our energy problems, is Pickens’ way of apologizing for supporting the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

That kind of spin might generate a breeze, but don’t look to Egan for the truth on Pickens and energy. In a Democratic zealot’s dream, New York Times writer Egan imagines that Pickens has completely abandoned his senses.

But Pickens is not saying that drilling for oil won’t do anything to increase U.S. domestic energy supplies or lower gasoline prices. He’s saying drilling is not the only answer. It alone can’t free us from buying foreign oil, which is draining the U.S. of $700 billion a year.

“Try everything. Do everything. Nuclear. Biomass. Coal. Solar. You name it. I support them all,” Pickens says in USA Today. “But there’s only one energy source that can dramatically reduce the amount of oil we have to import each year, and that’s (natural) gas.”

Energy variety. With energy expansion on many fronts (and not just in Texas), pumping new oil would have an effect on gas prices, though maybe not this year. Let’s say it’s in 10 years. Who doesn’t expect to be here in 10 years? And wouldn’t it be even better if by 2018 we also had one-third electric-driven, one-third natural-gas-driven and only one-third gasoline-driven cars?

Too many Democrats are blocking every major answer to our energy dependence. No oil drilling, except in areas where there is practically no oil. No new nuclear. No new natural gas. No wind farms (ask Senator Kennedy).

Just as Pickens was right to question Kerry’s dishonest claims of a Cambodia in Christmas of 1968 and Kerry’s dishonest condemnation of U.S. troops in Vietnam, Pickens is right to urge us to win our energy independence now by all means.

Frank Warner

Lanny Davis: We owe that Iraqi lady with the purple finger

It was the day Michael Yon says the journalists were all ready to cover Iraq’s funeral and instead found themselves witnessing a baptism of freedom.

Jan. 30, 2005.

It’s the day when Lanny Davis, noted Democrat and Clinton White House counsel, first wondered if he was wrong to oppose the liberation of Iraq. Davis says:

I remember the exact moment I had my first serious doubts about whether I was 100 percent right that the U.S. preemptive invasion of Iraq and the take-out of Saddam Hussein was a serious mistake. …

I saw on TV in early 2005, in their first preliminary democratic elections, long lines of Iraqis waiting to vote under the hot desert sun with bombs and shrapnel exploding around them. Waiting to vote!

And then there was that indelible image — an older woman shrouded in a carpet-like cape, smiling gleefully and holding her purple finger in the air for the TV cameras, purple with ink showing that she had voted.

Smiling! In the middle of war! At U.S. troops standing nearby!

Wow, I thought. Is it possible I was wrong?

Is it possible, I wondered, that Iraqis truly did want democracy and freedom and the right to vote and government of the people, just as we Americans do? And were willing to fight for it, with our help?

Wouldn’t that be a good thing? Even a great thing?

Maybe another democracy, however imperfect, other than Israel in the Middle East could lead to more moderation, possibly other democracies? Democracies that could serve as bulwarks against Al Qaeda-type of terrorist states?

Then in 2005-2006 came the increased violence from the Sunni insurgents against American kids, then the sectarian civil war between Sunnis and Shi’ites, with young Americans caught in the crossfire. My certainty in opposing the war and supporting a deadline for getting out re-emerged.

And then in early 2007 came the surge, which so many of us in the anti-war left of the Democratic Party predicted would be a failure, throwing good men and women and billions of dollars after futility. We were wrong.

Support and patience. Davis still has his doubts that all the casualties were worth a democratic Iraq, but he is convinced the Iraqis now deserve from the U.S. “some continuing presence and support and patience as they strive to find peace, political reconciliation — and maybe even the beginnings of a stable democracy.”

He doesn’t want U.S. forces in Iraq for 100 years, but he is honest and responsible enough to see we can’t throw away Iraq’s first real chance in history of building a free country.

He remembers “that lady with the purple finger.” She deserves to be free, even if the Iraqis need us after May 20, 2010, to guarantee her liberty.

Rare honesty. Like Davis, I remember Jan. 30, 2005. I remember being with a bunch of Democrats. They were so stunned and, yes, disappointed with the success of the Iraq election that they had no words. They tried to pretend they hadn’t seen all those purple fingers.

But it happened. And now, so has the surge happened and succeeded. I wonder how many of the Democratic deniers of Jan. 30, 2005, are today as honest and liberal as Lanny Davis to admit something has gone right in Iraq, that freedom is born there and we Americans must save it.

Frank Warner

Iraq Army to Sadr militia: ‘We’ll be waiting for you’

The Iraq Army’s defeat of Moktada al-Sadr’s illegal militias in Baghdad and Basra has been the best evidence yet of the new army’s competence, and of its ability to treat Sunnis and Shiites evenhandedly.

The London Times reports:

There is an interesting piece of graffiti on a bridge near Basra. A fleeing militiaman has scrawled “We’ll be back”; underneath an Iraqi soldier has scribbled in reply “And we'll be waiting for you”.

The Shia militias, the Jaish al- Mahdi, who controlled large parts of Basra until March this year, has now gone and instead the city is firmly under the grip of Iraq’s new security forces, in whom the coalition has invested so much training. …

Around the city the posters of religious leaders are being replaced with billboards advertising cars and mobile phones and photographs of Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, who is rightly credited with being the driving force behind the army’s crackdown.

The cease-fires. The Times story also is a reminder that Sadr’s “cease-fires” have never been from a position of strength, as if Sadr had a choice. Sadr’s “cease-fires” have been Sadr’s surrenders.

Sadr is in Iran now. The Iraq Army is waiting for his return. If he comes back shooting, he’ll issue his last “cease-fire.”

Frank Warner

Obama goes flexible on Iraq

In Jordan today, Barack Obama was back to talking about "ending," rather than winning, the Iraq war. His most active Democratic supporters just can't stand the thought that a Republican president led a democratic (with a small "d") victory in Iraq. Nevertheless, a day after saying we have to win in Iraq, Obama did say we have to "succeed" in Iraq. So that's hopeful to real liberals interested in liberty.

Obama also loosened up on his 16-month withdrawal plan. He called it a "goal," and more than once used the word "timeframe" to describe it. He said he would pay attention to the actual security situation in Iraq as his gradual withdrawal was implemented, and would not apply its timeline rigidly, but he wanted the Iraqis to know U.S. combat troops would not be there in perpetuity.

Interesting, too, was his definition of "U.S. combat troops." After they're gone, he'd still have U.S. troops, apparently not "combat troops," to fight any resurgence of al-Qaida or violent militias. And he would return U.S. troops, or postpone their leaving, if he were advised by U.S. military commanders that those troops were needed to stop or prevent "genocide."

For a Democrat once committed to removing all U.S. troops last year, even if it meant genocide, he's come a long way.

Frank Warner

This is it! For first time, Barack Obama says ‘win’ the Iraq war

ABC News finally asked Barack Obama some challenging questions yesterday, and for the first time, Obama said flatly that the United States has to “win” the Iraq war, as one front of the war on terrorism.

When asked if he is committed to winning the war in Iraq, Obama said, “I don’t think we have any choice. We have to win the broader war against terror that threatens America and its interests. I think that Iraq is one front on that war, but I think the central front is in Afghanistan and in the border regions of Pakistan.”

This is a breakthrough. And if Obama accepts Prime Minister Maliki’s flexible schedule for an Iraq pull-out that guarantees a secure democracy, we’re all on board the train to victory.

16-month goal. Obama also told ABC that his 16-month Iraq withdrawal plan is a “goal.” He said General David Petraeus had “deep concerns” about “a timetable that doesn’t take into account what they anticipate might be a change in conditions.”

“Goal” is the important word here. But just to keep the defeatists at bay, Obama will stick to saying he has a 16-month schedule, at least until after the Democratic National Convention.

Frank Warner

McCain on Obama

In the op-ed piece The New York Times won't publish, John McCain says of Barack Obama:

I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

Ouch. No wonder The Times won't print it. Too much talk of the victory of freedom.

Frank Warner

Obama, what if Maliki wants 6 more months? (Ha! Maliki wants 7 more!)

Ask Barack Obama today, while he's in Baghdad: What if Prime Minister Maliki told you the U.S. withdrawal should take 22 months, and not your 16 months, to protect Iraq's new democracy?

The answer would clarify a lot for all of us.

Frank Warner

* * *

Update! This is almost exactly what Maliki asked for today. Maliki told Obama he'd like U.S. troops to stay till the END OF 2010. Obama has promised Democrats he will have them out by May 2010, come hell or highwater.

Now, if Obama sees no point in protecting Iraq's democracy, if Iraq is just a distraction from real U.S. interests elsewhere, if the only problem with Iraq is that U.S. troops are there, then why would Obama agree to alter his Iraq pull-out deadline on Maliki's request?

What was Obama's comment on the meeting with Maliki: "We had a very constructive discussion."

Is Obama revising his 16-month pull-out pledge to a flexible 23-month pull-out pledge? Is he suddenly and wholeheartedly for the victory of freedom in Iraq?

The press didn't ask.

In Iraq, let's hear some victory talk from Obama

Well, Barack Obama is in Baghdad.

If Prime Minister Maliki is smart, he'll get Obama talking about Iraq and democracy and victory, all in the same sentence.

Keep listening!

Frank Warner

Question for Josh Marshall: Is Obama’s withdrawal plan as victory-oriented as Maliki’s? If so, great

I’m tickled at how Josh Marshall, by latching onto Prime Minister Maliki’s hopes for a U.S. withdrawal in early 2010, is painting his fellow Democrats and himself into the Iraq victory corner.

Be my guest.

Desperate to prop up Barack Obama’s foreign policy credibility, Marshall is so excited that Maliki had a kind word about Obama’s 16-month pull-out plan that Marshall suddenly is betting everything that the withdrawal will take exactly 16 months, and he is ready to declare, in effect, that President Bush has won the Iraq war. (But Marshall won't put it that way.)

Right timeframe. Der Spiegel in Germany reported two days ago that Maliki said:

“US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes….

“So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn’t the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias.”

Redeployment as victory? Reacting to the initial reporting on Maliki’s statements, Marshall was ecstatic. Imagining that Maliki had rebuked John McCain for his insistence on full security before scheduling a withdrawal, Marshall said:

“I don’t think it’s enough to say this is a huge development. It’s huger than that. In a stroke, I think, al Maliki has cut McCain off at the knees in a way I’m not sure his campaign strategy can recover from….

“What’s more, he’s given Obama want amounts to a potent new talking point by defining American redeployment out of Iraq as ‘victory.’”

Contrary to Marshall’s spin, Maliki didn’t define “redeployment” as “victory.” He defined the defeat of al-Qaida and the militias as victory, opening the door to a U.S. withdrawal. But fine, it’s good that Democratic zealots finally are open to a “victory” in Iraq. I hope Obama picks up on this.

Possibility of slight changes. But on Obama’s 16-month withdrawal plan (January 2009 to May 2010), Marshall ignored at least one other part of what Maliki said. Even if we ignore Maliki’s later clarification that any withdrawal schedule would have to consider actual security conditions in Iraq (a la McCain), Maliki already had hinted at the major difference between Obama’s pull-out plan and the only pull-out plan that makes sense.

Maliki said Obama’s 16 months would be “the right timeframe … with the possibility of slight changes.” (A later Der Spiegel report quotes Maliki as saying "with the possibility of changes," leaving out the word "slight.")

Marshall may be edging ever-so-closely to joining the advocates of a democratic victory in Iraq, but he now has a question to answer: If Maliki were to tell Obama that those “slight changes” would include (1) waiting for the Iraq Army to grow to a certain size, or (2) waiting for Iraqi violence to fall to a certain level, or (3) adding, say, six months to Obama’s 16 months (July 21 Update : Maliki says he wants seven more months than the Obama plan), would Marshall and his fellow partisans say yes?

Conditional timetable? Because if, in exchange for Maliki’s blessing on Obama, Marshall and pals can agree to that, they would have discarded completely the cynical illogic of their devil-may-care Iraq timetable. Again fine. But until now, the defeatists haven’t budged on any arbitrary pull-out date for any Iraq-related reason. If they now accept any condition from Maliki, suddenly their withdrawal isn’t arbitrary -- it's success-based, victory-based.

Until now, the Democratic defeatists have said that the only thing important is the pull-out date because there’s nothing important about Iraq except leaving it. Until now, it hasn’t mattered to them if Iraq returns to dictatorship, falls into genocide or secures its new democracy. In fact, to this group, losing in Iraq has been a fairly high priority.

So if they are willing to make “slight changes” to Obama’s withdrawal plan for the sake of securing Iraq’s freedom, great. Welcome to John McCain’s reality-based foreign policy, where democracy always is better than dictatorship, where the victory of liberty is the only moral option.

Victory first. And don’t assume McCain’s vision can only lengthen the presence of U.S. combat troops in Iraq. If things calm down dramatically in the next six months, maybe we won’t need more than a 14-month withdrawal. As McCain says, you won’t know Iraq is ready until Iraq is ready.

If you stick with a fixed pull-out date, you’re almost certain to have picked wrong. If you make a 16-month pull-out a goal, and then adjust to real conditions, you practically guarantee victory.

If Josh Marshall can handle a guarantee of democracy’s victory in Iraq, heck, that’s a breakthrough. Obama should go with it.

Frank Warner

* * *

Update: The New York Times says it listened to a tape of Maliki's words, and translated them as follows:

“Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”

He continued: “Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”

So Maliki says that schedule "could be suitable," and it could be. But he does not say that should be a deadline, regardless of new developments.

* * *