Michael O'Hanlon, one of the leading scholars on the Iraq War and no fan of the President's pre-surge strategies, writes in the Wall Street Journal that Sen. Obama is naive and wrong on Iraq: Obama and Iraq By MICHAEL O'HANLON January 7, 2008; Page A13 One of Sen. Barack Obama's many strengths is his ability to inspire beyond party lines. Because he lacks the baggage of the past, and because his melodic message of hope speaks to many, he garnered much more support from independents in Iowa than either Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. But if he truly wants to be the candidate of inclusiveness, Mr. Obama has some work to do. This is particularly evident on the central national security challenge of the day, the Iraq war. Mr. Obama's problem is not his initial opposition to the war. At this point, that stance strikes many voters as prescient. Even for those of us who believe the main problem in Iraq was shoddy planning by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others, Mr. Obama's position is hard to dismiss. But there are nonetheless two problems with Mr. Obama's Iraq views that call into doubt his ability to build a truly inclusive American political movement. First, he seems contemptuous of the motivations of those who supported the war. While showing proper respect for the heroic efforts of our troops, he displays little regard for the views of those many Americans who saw the case for war in the first place -- even as he has called for a more civil and respectful political debate. This is unfortunate. Saddam Hussein was one of the worst and most dangerous dictators of the late 20th century. The basic proposition of unseating him was hardly an unconscionable idea, even if President Bush's approach to doing so was unilateralist, arrogant and careless. With our last image of Saddam a resigned figure heading for the gallows, it is easy to forget who this monster was.

Mark Strichertz, author of "Why the Democrats are Blue: Secular Liberalism and the Decline of the People’s Party." writes today at NRO that the "new" candidate, Obama, is singing the same old song for the Dems: The party continues to deny pro-life Democrats from reaching a national audience, the most famous victim being former governor Robert Casey of Pennsylvania. Also, Obama, seemingly the most tolerant of the party’s major candidates, does not embrace diversity when it comes to social and cultural issues. Besides his unwavering support for abortion rights, he struggled to connect with rural Iowa voters: “[a]t many stops,” the New York Times reported, “he would face questions from conservative Democrats about gun control ...

James Taranto at Opinionjournal.com whacks Barack Hussein Obama for his outrageous statement this week about genocide: Barack Obama's latest pronouncement on Iraq should have shocked the conscience. In an interview with the Associated Press last week, the freshman Illinois senator and Democratic presidential candidate opined that even preventing genocide is not a sufficient reason to keep American troops in Iraq. "Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now--where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife--which we haven't done," Mr. Obama told the AP. "We would be deploying unilaterally and ...

One thing is certain; Democrats are not willing to accept defeat, no matter what. No, I'm not talking about the war in Iraq. I'm talking about their all-out offensive against the Bush administration. For them, defeat is not an option. George W. Bush must be brought to his knees, no matter what the cost. Having already proven their resolve by hosting an all-night slumber party in the Senate, it seems Democrats are ready to raise the stakes. Apparently, even genocide in Iraq is now an option. MessNBC reports that Barack Obama "said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a ...

Senator Mitch McConnell notes today that The Dems have themselves in quite a pickle. They belly-ached long enough about needing a new strategy that the President finally gave them one in January. President Bush sent General Petraeus to Iraq, with an 81-0 confirmation from the Senate, to carry out the battle plan now known as The Surge. Almost immediately, Barack Obama boldly asserted, "The president's strategy will not work." What he should have said was, "The Democrats cannot afford for the president's strategy to work." For the next three months the Democrats, who keep reminding us of the so-called mandate they've been given, tried to pass a funding bill that would keep ...

Not to be outdone by Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama joined in on the "Blame Bush for the tornado in Kansas" campaign. While I could comment on the appropriateness of using an F-5 tornado that destroyed an entire town as a political tool, or Obama's accidental exaggeration of the death toll, I would prefer instead to simply address the facts of this disaster. Specifically, the facts and misinformation that Barack and Nancy are trotting out in their Blame Bush games. Governor Sebelius has stated that 40% of the National Guard's troops are in Iraq, and that about 50% of their equipment is gone. Obama also tells us that ...