McCain or Obama? In either case, you are buying a pig, lipsticked or not, in a poke. But the language of Obama and what it reflects is far more worrisome than the language of McCain, though he is, admittedly, stuck to Tarbaby Iraq. And if he continues to be stuck to Tarbaby Iraq, he may lose the election. (Of course, Obama wishes us out of Tarbaby Iraq but into Tarbaby Afghanistan and that, it is clear, now also means Tarbaby Pakistan.) All McCain has to do is say something like the following:
“The surge has worked. And that is why we can now draw down our troops, and remove ourselves. That is why it is time for the Iraqis to do their part, and to rebuild their country. It makes no sense for the United States, which is suffering economically from the stratospheric rise in the price of oil, to continue to send tens or even hundreds of billions to Iraq — so much of it, we know, has been diverted by grand theft and corruption — when they have a surplus that is now close to one hundred billion. We have repeatedly asked that they begin to spend this money, but they have not done so.
“And it makes no sense for us, either, to remain in Iraq indefinitely, when our military is so stretched, and when the terms and conditions imposed by the Iraqi government are so very different from those imposed by other countries, by our close allies in NATO.
“What does make sense is for our troops to be ready for all kinds of eventualities outside Iraq, where we have done enough, and more than enough. What does make sense is for us to work with our closest allies to make sure that we, or they, are able to deal with Iran’s nuclear threat, and to make sure that the wherewithal is supplied our ally Israel to deal with what for it is a mortal threat. We do not want to see a nuclear cloud over Jerusalem, destroying its people and its monuments. We do not want to see a nuclear cloud elsewhere over the Land of Israel, or what many of us call by another name: the Holy Land.
“There are those who think that we must not allow Israel to be able to protect itself from a mortal peril, the one that threatens Israel and the Middle East, and Infidels elsewhere, the one emanating from the Islamic Republic of Iran. They think this because, as one official said, disgracefully, “we don’t want to have any interference with our policy in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
“But this makes no sense. We have done what we can do in Iraq. If the Iraqis turn on us, it will not be because Israel, protecting themselves and, not incidentally, protecting the entire Infidel world too, sets back for a decade Iran’s nuclear project. Instead, it will be because of other, deeply-held beliefs that we have for too long ignored. Those who think we should allow our closest ally, Israel, that prevented Saddam Hussein from building a nuclear weapon when it bombed Osirak, and that prevented, just a few months ago, the Syrians from installing a North Korean nuclear installation that potentially could threaten not only Israel but a wide swath of territory, including Lebanon and Turkey, and parts of southern Europe, should understand that what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan are far less important at this point than what happens in Iran, and whether or not the Islamic Republic of Iran is permitted to obtain nuclear weapons.
“That is why I have concluded that it is time to face new facts in Iraq. The position of the Iraqi government is such, and its demands on the continued presence of our troops there are so constraining, that it is time to go.
“They have been given much. They have been freed from a monstrous dictatorship. We have poured men and money and materiel into that country. And now, it is time, soberly and in order, taking with us all of our equipment lest it fall into the wrong hands, out. Not because Jihad is no longer a threat — but because, you see, it is.”
Wild applause, McCain wins the election.