Obama's "Rookie" Dancing Pirouette

I was alarmed by Barack Hussein Obama's recent (July 14) "op-ed" in the New York Times. He is just plain vanilla wrong in substance and "flip flops" like any other politician. He proved to me that he lacks experience and is totally baffled by Iraq's present problems and progresses. Obama's troubles begin in the first paragraph where he mistakenly writes: "... Kamal al-Maliki [calls] for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq ..." As I interpret the Prime Minister's words he has not made a governmental demand for such withdrawal. Obama falsely uses the PM's words to favor his political cause. That is just wrong and condemnable. What Iraq's leaders wish is to forge an agreement that limits "permanency" of US troops in Iraq--after victory has been accomplished. Surely, Iraq needs our troops until stability is created (and Iraq's own military and police forces can keep the peace). There is no Iraq demand for an immediate withdrawal--just Obama's fabrications to serve his political interests.

I have read (but do not remember where) that the Iraqi government wants our troops in Iraq until the general elections of 2009. This plan is also supported by the clergy especially Ayatollah Sistani. (A powerful figure in Iraq.) That makes sense. Why? To preserve stability and maintain the proper atmosphere for free and fair general elections--Democracy at Work. Clearly, today, Obama is baffled or is being politically disingenuous or both.

Before writing the NYT's "op-ed," Obama should have done two intelligent things: (1) he should have consulted directly or indirectly with al-Maliki and Sistani, and (2) he should have visited Iraq and privately talked to our Commanders. Obama has placed the cart before the horse, and McCain has called him on it. (Yes, McCain can teach Obama many political techniques. The "rookie" will eventually learn--after his dramatic loss come November.)