Obama: Political Opportunist

This speech is just Political opportunism in the extreme. Not only is he putting out false accusation, but he's riding on statement that military leaders in Iraq have been proposing in the past few weeks. Shameless? Certainly looks that way to me.

As he scolded the White House for what he called "shameful" attempts to silence dissent about the war, Obama urged President Bush to look beyond politics and admit that mistakes were made in Iraq. He said the U.S. should seek to accelerate its training of Iraqi troops and seek political solutions that are more practical than striving to create a "Jeffersonian democracy" in Iraq.

"During the course of the next year, we need to focus our attention on how to reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq," Obama said in a luncheon speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, a forum he had requested. "Notice that I say `reduce,' and not `fully withdraw.'"

Shameful attempts to silence dissent? Really? I watched the Cheney speech and Bush in China and the both clearly stated that the debate is a good thing.

Here's what Cheney stated:

One thing I've learned in the last five years is that when you're Vice President, you're lucky if your speeches get any attention at all. But I do have a quarrel with that headline, and it's important to make this point at the outset. I do not believe it is wrong to criticize the war on terror or any aspect thereof. Disagreement, argument, and debate are the essence of democracy, and none of us should want it any other way. For my part, I've spent a career in public service, run for office eight times -- six statewide offices and twice nationally. I served in the House of Representatives for better than a decade, most of that time as a member of the leadership of the minority party. To me, energetic debate on issues facing our country is more than just a sign of a healthy political system -- it's also something I enjoy. It's one of the reasons I've stayed in this business. And I believe the feeling is probably the same for most of us in public life.

And here's what Bush stated:

This is a debate worthy of our country; it's an important debate. It does not have to be a partisan issue. Fine Democrats like Senator Joe Lieberman share the view that we must prevail in Iraq. Bipartisan majorities in the House and the Senate rejected calls for immediate withdrawal. My decisions in Iraq will continue to be guided by the sober judgment of the military commanders on the ground in Iraq. Those elected leaders in Washington who do not support our policies in Iraq have every right to voice their dissent. They also have a responsibility to provide a credible alternative. The stakes are too high, and the national interest too important, for anything otherwise.

Sound like they are putting down dissent?

Then there is the discussion on withdrawal.

"During the course of the next year, we need to focus our attention on how to reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq," Obama said in a luncheon speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, a forum he had requested. "Notice that I say `reduce,' and not `fully withdraw.'"

Obama, who vigorously opposed the war during his Senate candidacy, made his first major foray into the escalating public debate as Congress and the White House wrestle with the past and the future of U.S. involvement in Iraq and as American military deaths in conflict neared 2,100.

"The administration has narrowed an entire debate about war into two camps: `cut-and-run' or `stay the course,'" Obama said. "If you offer any criticism or even mention that we should take a second look at our strategy and change our approach, you are branded `cut-and-run.' If you are ready to blindly trust the administration no matter what they do, you are willing to stay the course."

Seems Obama has been missing that the discussion of when and how that has been going on for a while. It's also interesting that he characterizes the administrations discussion as being only between "cut-and-run" or "stay-the-course." Not only has General Peter Pace been discussing gradual withdrawls openly, but the Iraqi government has as well.

Pace:

While critics of the war in Iraq continue to assail the Bush administration and push to bring U.S. troops home, a top U.S. military official told FOX News on Tuesday that the training of Iraqi forces is going "extremely well" and could help pave the way for a pullout timetable.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace outlined goals for U.S. forces six months from now on the same day that Iraqi leaders said their troops will be ready to take over in a year.

"Things have gone extremely well with regard to training the Iraqi armed forces and to getting that country up on its feet," Pace told FOX News in an exclusive interview. "There is absolutely no way that we can fail. The only way we can fail is if we lose our will or lose our patience."

And the Iraqi government:

On Tuesday, Iraqi leaders called for their own timetable to withdraw foreign forces in their country.

About 100 Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders signed a closing memorandum at a reconciliation conference in Cairo, Egypt, that "demands a withdrawal of foreign troops on a specified timetable, together with an immediate national program for rebuilding the security forces.

"The Iraqi people are looking forward to the day when foreign forces will leave Iraq, when its armed and security forces will be rebuilt and when they can enjoy peace and stability and an end to terrorism," according to the statement backed by the Arab League.

Maybe I'm just interpreting this, but I could swear that withdrawal on a time table is a gradual withdrawal. The Washington Post even has an article related to the start of withdrawal as proposed by Military leaders in Iraq. But it must be all original from Obama since he is such an all-star of the democrats.

Does anyone honestly believe that the democrats, and the republicans for that matter, want an honest debate on this subject?