Change we can't believe in

By Dan Streib

Even if the future punishes America with a President Obama, we should prepare to be in Iraq for a long time. This is especially true in light of his recent promise to pull the troops out of a war-torn country for political gain, and as president, put them back in when strategic necessity calls for it.

But I will speak more on that and my problems with Mr. Obama in a moment. Other current news can help us better understand the importance of this war to the upcoming presidential election.

In The Daily Illini on Wednesday, an Associated Press report talked of the war in Iraq – but something was different. This time, the killings by terrorists were not the focal point of the article. The main subject was a “decisive” battle at al-Qaida in Iraq’s “last urban stronghold,” of Mosul.

These characterizations seem to confirm what the news has been telling us in the past year: The country is improving.

People who disagree with this view are right to point out that the political process is still a mess and that violence could always pick up as a result of unforeseen enemies. That’s why no one is predicting a quick end to this war.

Get The Daily Illini in your inbox!

  • Catch the latest on University of Illinois news, sports, and more. Delivered every weekday.
  • Stay up to date on all things Illini sports. Delivered every Monday.
Thank you for subscribing!

But we finally have skilled people in charge, including Gen. Petraeus and Secretary of Defense Gates. And we have a little thing called the wind of success blowing at our backs.

Because of this and the war’s importance, our next president must not ignore our gains and leave Iraq in a fashion that will cause us to come back later.

Interestingly enough, Mr. Obama recently promised that as president, he would bring troops back into Iraq if al-Qaida develops a stronghold there. Such a statement would be laughable if it did not come from a candidate for president of the United States. So, if I may, I have some questions for the supposedly humble congressman.

Mr. Obama, what part of the “in Iraq” in al-Qaida IN IRAQ do you fail to understand?

When President George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain asked him the same thing, he declined to respond and tried to shake the public’s trust in them (as if Bush’s needs to be shaken). He did so by pointing out that Bush and McCain helped bring us into Iraq.

Mr. Obama, isn’t shaking the trust in your political adversaries the type of politics you pretend to disown?

Excuse me, Mr. Obama, but do you honestly think the same smear tactics you used against Sen. Clinton in regard to an Iraq vote that you did not have to cast will work in a general election?

Where, Mr. Obama, did you learn how to so eloquently attack someone’s credibility, while still appearing to stand for a better way of political discourse?

Why, Mr. Obama, do you make a non-Washington way of doing “things” your theme, when you yourself never do “things” this way?

Why do you attack John McCain on his record of having, as David Brooks puts it, “…battled concentrated power more doggedly than any other legislator,” by accusing him of cozying up to lobbyists?

I guess my bigger question is: How, Mr. Obama, do you have the ability to lie to the American people and get away with it?

Well, Mr. Obama, rest assured, your hypocrisy on Iraq, your lack of any new kind of politics and your propensity to attack another person’s character – all the while hoping that they’ll leave your lack of policy expertise alone – won’t last you long in November.

And then, Democrats will begin to think that maybe Hillary wasn’t that unelectable after all.

Dan is a sophomore in political science and regrets the passing of William F. Buckley Jr.