I’d love to believe Jolie is being impartially sincere, here. I really would.
But the timing is just a bit too coincidental.

Any strides started now, or soon, toward progress in Iraq, and the relative changing of public perception of the war in general because of it, would start to show results under the next administration, and eventually be credited to the incoming commander-in-chief, instead of this one.

So either Obama or McCain will eventually be given credit for being the saviour in Iraq, if these things actually happen, even though it was Bush’s surge that was the major catalyst, and turning point in the war.

Again, I’d like to believe her, but my suspicious streak when it comes to celebrity activists (and lefties in general) insists that she’s aware of this, and even planning on that timing.

Besides, Jolie is an honorary member of the Council on Foreign Relations. And as any good Ron Paulite will tell you, that’s obviously an evil, illuminati-style shadow government group bent on world domination.

[/moonbat]

If McCain wins the presidency, I’d be fine with him getting credit for any progress in Iraq instead of Bush.  He, after all, was calling for something akin to the Surge a long time before Bush got his ass handed to him in the 2006 mid-terms and decided that “staying the course” was not such a good idea after all.

Taking credit for things that happen during their presidency is par for the course, even if the President opposed the policy that brought about the event in the first place.

Clinton claimed credit for the booming economy in the mid-90s, even though it was the “Contract with America” and the Internet bubble that boosted the economy.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott joked at the time that “Some people say ‘Well Bill and Al deserve the credit.’ I agree. Bill Gates and Alan Greenspan.”

He, after all, was calling for something akin to the Surge a long time before Bush got his ass handed to him in the 2006 mid-terms and decided that “staying the course” was not such a good idea after all.

Starving, it’s not that I’m saying McCain shouldn’t get due credit for promoting a surge beforehand, but I am going to have to ask… in what way is the surge not “staying the course”?
The term “staying the course” never referred to not trying new military tactics, after all. It was a phrase describing the ideology of pursuing a continued military presence, juxtaposed to the DNC’s plan of retreat.

Taking credit for things that happen during their presidency is par for the course, even if the President opposed the policy that brought about the event in the first place.

Yeah, Drum, it is par for the course.
The fact that this is so well known is the basis of my whole point, really.

My objection isn’t necessarily even to the next prez taking the glory for this. It’s more to , what I assume to be, the calculated plan for this to happen by Jolie, and others who will invariably follow suit in calling for continued pressure, while trying to change the public’s perception of the war.
In short, of course I want us to succeed over there, and I believe we can only do that the way we’re doing it.
But it really irks me that the hollywood left is preparing to make the war “okay again”, just because it’s not Bush in the big chair anymore, y’know?

Which, really, when you think about it, kind of proves what so many have said about that lot in the past; that the war is only promoted as “wrong” by them because it’s under a conservative president.
After all, nary a word of protest from the same group came during Clinton’s military follies.

Which, really, when you think about it, kind of proves what so many have said about that lot in the past; that the war is only promoted as “wrong” by them because it’s under a conservative president.

Such as Janeane Garofalo, who admitted that she never complained about Clinton’s illegal* war in Kosovo** because it “wasn’t cool”

* - unsupported by either the UN or Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force

** - we’re still in that quagmire, by the way