This quote qualifies for the quote of the year, not to mention,  the Quote of the week or day.

The typical liberal reaction to this was (paraphrasing): “It’s such a relief to ‘finally’ have a president who will own up to his mistakes!”

Really? That’s setting the bar really low. This was an easy mistake for him to own up to. The hard one apparently is for him to admit he was wrong about the surge. Let’s not forget that last summer he said he would still have voted against the surge even had he known at the time how successful it would end up being in terms of the downturn in violence that led to other positive things happening in Iraq.

People like to talk about how Bush’s mistakes “cost lives” in Iraq but Obama’s failure to admit he was wrong about the surge just shows the same foolish bullheadedness others criticized Bush for years about re: Iraq after things started heading south. Had then-Senator Obama had his way about the surge, that would have “cost lives” as well: We would certainly have seen the violence continue to get worse, resulting in more American soldier and coalition casualties, not to mention skyrocketing civilian deaths – possibly even resulting in genocide long-term, thanks to his desire to “cut our losses and get out.”

When he owns up to admitting his poor (not to mention dangerous and irresponsible) judgment in continuing to oppose the surge even after he knew what the results of it were, I’ll be impressed. Until then, this is just small potatoes. – (Source)

Man, is she right, Wow! Amen!

This is precisely the problem. As credible experts, including some Democrats, have pointed out, much of this “long-term” spending either won’t stimulate the economy now, is of questionable merit, or both.

Obama’s desire to begin a “post-partisan” era may have backfired. In his eagerness to accommodate Republicans and listen to their ideas over the past week, he has allowed the GOP to turn the haggling over the stimulus package into a decidedly stale, Republican-style debate over pork, waste and overspending.

Tell me again that “there is nothing we can do about it,” or “it’s God’s
will,” or “Jesus is coming soon.” Better yet, tell it again to the suffering
Christians around the world; tell it again to our Christian forebears; tell
it again to your children and grandchildren who are going to inherit a land
of tyranny and oppression, all because you were too lazy to resist.

I know unbelievers who have more character and determination about
preserving liberty than many who call themselves Christians. And I have a
ton more respect for them, too. Our Lord told us, “For unto whomsoever much
is given, of him shall be much required” (Luke 12:48). Yes, Christians in
America have been given the best of both worlds, and many do not even
appreciate it enough to see to it that their own children–their own flesh
and blood–will live to enjoy the same blessings. They are pathetic!

So, the next time you hear some piety-draped Christian talking about how he
won’t engage the enemy and fight for liberty, because of prophecy, or some
other spiritually-sounding platitude, just remember, it has nothing to do
with prophecy, or anything of the sort: it has everything to do with
old-fashioned laziness. My feeling toward him is the same as that of Sam
Adams (a fellow Christian) toward the Tories of old: “If ye love wealth
better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest
for freedom–go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly
upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!” Amen!

and….

Has Obama no more imaginative ideas for government’s role in
reshaping the economy for the 21st century than this? Was it all
talk all along, to prepare the way for a return to the days of
spend and spend?

Sad, because this is likely to be Obama’s last shot at getting this
economy on its feet and running by 2010. For Americans are not as
patient as they were in the 1930s, when FDR could try one idea,
then another, then another for five years, and continue to roll up
massive electoral victories.

If Obama gets this one wrong, and all this pork and welfare fail to
generate real growth, his party could face a wipeout in 2010, and
his opportunity could be lost forever. Does he really want to bet
the farm on the nag Nancy Pelosi just trotted out of the House?

Like Rabin in 1994 and Ehud Barak in 2000, two of the most decorated soldiers in Israel’s history, Olmert had concluded, late in life, that it is either land for peace, with all its risks, or endless war for Israel.

Yet, after that interview, he launched the December blitz and invaded Gaza, killing and wounding 5,000 Palestinians, making of the Strip a zone of permanent hatred and making Hamas, whom he sought to dethrone and undeniably wounded, even stronger.

Enraged that Hamas was not destroyed or disarmed, Israelis are leaning toward the Likud Party of “Bibi” Netanyahu, who opposed the withdrawal from Gaza, opposes a withdrawal from the West Bank, will never share Jerusalem and calls Gaza “Hamastan.”

Should he win, a Bibi-Barack collision appears inevitable. Backing Bibi will be the Israeli lobby, the Evangelicals, the neocons and a Congress that could find only five members to oppose a resolution endorsing all the Israelis had done and were doing to the people of Gaza.

Where there is no solution there is no problem.