Obama’s Dishonest Spin on Iraq
July 2nd, 2008 at 05:53am Mark Noonan
Obama’s surrogates are out there on the hustings trying to say that Obama always said the “troop surge” would work - don’t believe it for a moment:
“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” (MSNBC’s “Response To The President’s Speech On Iraq,” 1/10/07)
“We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality — we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 1/14/07)
“But I did not see anything in the speech or anything in the run- up to the speech that provides evidence that an additional 15,000 to 20,000 more U.S. troops is going to make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that’s taking place there.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 1/10/07)
“But right now what we have is, I think by all accounts, a disaster unfolding in Iraq . We all have a responsibility, Democrats and Republicans, Congress and the White House, to make sure that we can come up with the best strategy. I don’t think the president’s strategy is going to work. We went through two weeks of hearings on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; experts from across the spectrum — military and civilian, conservative and liberal — expressed great skepticism about it. My suggestion to the president has been that the only way we’re going to change the dynamic in Iraq and start seeing political commendation is actually if we create a system of phased redeployment. And, frankly, the president, I think, has not been willing to consider that option, not because it’s not militarily sound but because he continues to cling to the belief that somehow military solutions are going to lead to victory in Iraq .” (MSNBC’s “Reaction To The State Of The Union Address,” 1/23/07)
“And what was striking to me in listening to all the testimony that was provided, was the almost near unanimity that the president’s strategy will not work. The almost near unanimity among experts on the Middle East and Iraq that the president’s strategy would not work. I was further struck by a consensus among the majority of witnesses that I heard — and, you know, I was not in every minute of every hearing — that we needed to, rather than escalate our troop levels, we actually needed to de-escalate; that, consistent with what the Iraq Study Group had stated, only by indicating in a strong fashion to the Iraqi government that we will not be there in perpetuity will we be able to change the dynamic and force the Shia, Sunni and Kurds to make the political accommodations that are required in order for us to bring some cessation to the violence that exists there. So, what’s striking to me is, at least, outside of politics, consensus seems to be building. It certainly is built among the American people. It is built among the experts in the area. And what remains, then, is the need for us to act.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Committee On Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 1/24/07)
Again and again and again Obama clearly and without qualification stated his view that the surge wouldn’t work and he backed up his view by citing alleged expert testimony stating that it wouldn’t work. There’s no two ways about it - Obama committed himself from the start to the position that the surge would not work. Now that it has worked and Obama is essentially being forced to acknowledge it he is choosing the standard Democratic tactic when faced with gross error - lie, lie and then lie some more. We can’t let Obama get away with this - he owns defeat in Iraq and can’t claim the slightest bit of credit for the fact that we are now winning.
Not only is it disgusting that Obama is trying to slither out of his 2007 defeatism but this attempt shows, if we needed more proof, that Obama is manifestly unfit to be President. A President is a person who must be willing to take the hard decision even if they are unpopular and who must be willing to endure the slings and arrows to ensure that the required things are done - Obama is proving himself a feather blown upon the winds of fashion and motivated entirely by a desire for personal power and prestige.
McCain advocated the surge even before President Bush did - heck, even when I thought the surge wouldn’t be necessary, McCain was out there saying it was. Kudos to McCain for perceiving correctly what needed to be done and more honor to him for staking out a position which was very unpopular at the time it was implemented. McCain, just in this alone, has shown that he has what it takes to be President - in the test of leadership, McCain has passed with flying colors, while Obama is still trying to copy the answers off the smart kid in the room.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Corruption, Democrats, Republicans, War on Terror
53 Comments Add your own
1. gotbrains? | July 2nd, 2008 at 6:31 am
It wasn’t adding 20,000 troops that made Iraq less dangerous today than it was a year ago. 20,000 more troops is not enough to make a significant difference in a country the size of Iraq.
What brought the violence down was a combination of negotiating with former insurgents, paying off certain Sunni tribal leaders, Maliki’s close ties with Iran, and the fact that ethnic cleansing had largely taken place by 2007 - meaning that warring factions have become much more segregated from each other. Just adding 20,000 troops was not in itself sufficient to lessen the violence.
And while violence has undeniably declined, the stated purpose of the surge - Iraqi reconciliation - has not transpired. We are still pouring $12 billion per month into this ill-conceived fiasco while Iraqis cannot come to agreement on even the most basic issues that are critical for Iraq to be a marginally functioning country.
Sen Obama is correct in his assessment that the surge, along with the tactics outlined above, has resulted in a tactical success; while the overall strategic scheme of going into Iraq was an enormous blunder. We cannot “surge” forever in a continuing belated effort to somehow make this war seem worthwhile.
2. Cooldown | July 2nd, 2008 at 7:18 am
Obama’s surrogates are out there on the hustings trying to say that Obama always said the “troop surge” would work July 2nd, 2008 at 05:53am Mark Noonan.
All these quotes from Obama stating the war in Iraq will need a diplomatic solution but funny how there is not one quote from Obama’s surrogates stating Obama always thought a military solution in Iraq was the answer. Not sure if there are or are not any such quotes, but seemed strange not to include three or four. For a minute there I thought this was a Leo post.
3. James Luthor | July 2nd, 2008 at 7:26 am
The surge has not worked.
The violence dropped for several reasons.
1. Not as many people to kill
a) 2m Iraqis have fled the country
b) 1m Iraqis civilians dead from bombing campaign.
2. Bush has been paying protection money to the militias that had been attacking us. They have been using that money to buy more arms from Pakistan. When Bush leaves office and stops paying them, they will be stronger than ever.
3. Ceasefire by the head cleric.
Our justification for the occupation of Iraq expires at the end of July. Members of the Iraqi government has petitioned the UN to let the law expire so US troops will leave.
Bush has been unable to reach a bilateral agreement with the Iraqi government to let US forces stay beyond 7/31 because of the issue of contractor immunity from Iraqi laws.
It nothing changes, the US will have to leave in August. Iraqis want us to leave because they know the surge did not work and the US presence in Iraq is making things worse.
4. js | July 2nd, 2008 at 7:32 am
These poor excuses really dont change anything. With 20K troops, you can rapidly deploy them to hotspots and fight insurgency much better. RDF=Rapid Deployment Force is a gift Remsfeld gave us. All you ticklefish pansies were so devout in your condemnation of the old boy, but in reality, it was his persistence through his career that literally resolved the whole issue.
I know, you are going to play toilet seat know it all and dispute every bit of information that conflicts with the lemming digital feed wired into your brain, but it wont change the truth. The primary reason for the drastic reduction in violence was our soldier ability to get to the location of the hostilities rapidly and then to seek and destroy the enemy before they had a change to leave the region.
5. robert w. blunt | July 2nd, 2008 at 7:44 am
I’ll concede that “the surge” has worked when I can fly by commercial airliner into Baghdad International. Right now, the only people who can fly into Baghdad and not fear for their lives are Iranians.
6. Paul Lillian | July 2nd, 2008 at 7:47 am
James Luthor:
I just read that Bush agreed to strip immunity from SOFA. I copied the article below.
“The United States has agreed to scrap immunity for foreign security guards in Iraq, allowing them to be prosecuted under national laws, the Iraq foreign minister has said.
“The immunity for private security guards has been removed. The US has agreed on it,” Hoshyar Zebari said on Tuesday after briefing Iraqi MPs on the controversial US-Iraq security pact.
Mirembe Nantongo, the US embassy spokeswoman in Baghdad, declined to make a comment on the issue.
“We do not comment on the contents of the ongoing negotiations,” she said.
Long-standing demand
Iraqi politicians have long demanded that the immunity offered to private security contractors be lifted.
“The Iraqis have been suffering because of this,” said Mahmud Othman, an MP who attended Tuesday’s closed-door negotiations.
About 100,000 private security contractors work in Iraq.
They are subject neither to the Iraqi legal system nor to US military tribunals, allowing them to operate virtually outside the law.
Immunity is a sensitive issue in Iraq after an incident in which security guards from the US company Blackwater shot dead 17 Iraqis in broad daylight in Baghdad last September.
Blackwater, one of the biggest private security contractors operating in Iraq,
says its guards reacted in self-defence.
Blackwater renewal
The company provides security to US embassy officials in Iraq, including the ambassador Ryan Crocker.
Earlier this year the US state department renewed Blackwater’s license to work in Iraq despite opposition from Iraqi leaders including the prime minister Nouri al-Maliki.
George Bush, the US president and Maliki agreed in principle last November to sign a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) in Iraq by the end of July.
The US-Iraq security agreement aims to establish the rules for a continuing US troop presence in Iraq after the current UN mandate for foreign forces stationed in Iraq expires in December 2008.
The talks appeared to reach a deadlock last month amid strong opposition from Iraqi political factions including from some Shia leaders who denounced the proposed agreement as “eternal slavery” for the country.
There are also concerns about the number of military bases which Washington will maintain in Iraq.”
7. hermie | July 2nd, 2008 at 7:53 am
Again, Obama has shown that his words cannot be relied upon, and his positions shift constantly. Yet the MSM, preferring a thrill up their collective legs, than a real leader with experience and substance, ignores it.
8. liberalDream | July 2nd, 2008 at 7:59 am
the surge HAS NOT succeeded. The purpose we were told was to establish a security that would allow a political solution and the ability for our presence to not to be needed anymore.
We are still in Iraq.
McCain would be happy to stay in Iraq for 1000 years if he thinks its needed.
Buying off enemies and having the violence come down from horrible to only half has horrible is not success. It is FAILURE.
9. extramedium | July 2nd, 2008 at 8:37 am
Mark,
A link to the alleged statements by the alleged surrogates might give this argument some weight. You’ll also want to show that whoever has said it is somehow speaking at the behest of Obama or his campaign - otherwise, it may be you who is being dishonest.
I think you are trying to take any supporter of Obama, label them a “surrogate” and make Obama personally accountable for anything they say - even to the point of calling him a liar if what they say disagrees with something Obama has said in the past.
If so, that’s just a smear and it’s shameful.
10. js | July 2nd, 2008 at 8:56 am
“The purpose we were told was to establish a security that would allow a political solution and the ability for our presence to not to be needed anymore. ”
you been reading fairy tails….please dont apply them to real facts….they dont work….
the surge was developed to help Iraqis gain control of the security situation there
President’s New Iraq Strategy Is Rooted In Six Fundamental Elements” as follow:
Let the Iraqis lead;
Help Iraqis protect the population;
Isolate extremists;
Create space for political progress;
Diversify political and economic efforts; and
Situate the strategy in a regional approach.
check wikipedia for simple information instead of putting your credibility in the trash can like a lemming next time
11. Fredrick Schwartz | July 2nd, 2008 at 9:01 am
10. js | July 2nd, 2008 at 8:56 am
So what is this now js Iraq Strategy 5.0?
12. js | July 2nd, 2008 at 9:03 am
in a nutshell, demmicraps will deny the existence of the truth until it becomes life threatening
lemmicrats are the lemmings that dont think for themselves and never figure out that thier life is under threat so they keeep on truckin right over the hill and fall the jagged rocks below
the last though of a lemming before the fatal error becomes obvious is;
“i know he is right because he is a demmicrat”….
13. js | July 2nd, 2008 at 9:05 am
i dono fred
is it off topic?
14. Magnum Serpentine | July 2nd, 2008 at 9:06 am
the Surge has failed, the george war is a disaster. Thats all there is to it. the george war is a total disaster. if george had not been appointed acting president, we would not had lost over 4000 troops in the useless, needless, pointless george war in iraq.
15. Don't Vote Obama | July 2nd, 2008 at 9:09 am
Just imagine the fun we will have with O in the White House. Disaster just isn’t the word with this flip flopping naivete young man in power….
16. Some Assembly Required | July 2nd, 2008 at 9:11 am
12. js | July 2nd, 2008 at 9:03 am
Brilliant example of projection. I challenge you to look in the mirror and say that with a straight face. Maybe then you’ll notice that your only describing that person looking back at you.
17. js | July 2nd, 2008 at 9:25 am
sorry SAR, but your diminished capacity failed to evoke a responce to your juvenile jab at this issue
if you want your pun to be reconsidered, flush twice, its a long way to the local SAR academy….
18. js | July 2nd, 2008 at 9:27 am
so when its a useless cause to fight for freedom, then the surge really was a waste of time
until then, its more than obvious that the lemming populace is tumbling over the hillside, repeating the mantra ;
“i know he is right because he is a demmicrat”….
19. Some Assembly Required | July 2nd, 2008 at 9:47 am
js, ‘evoke’ a ‘responce’…
You mean like post #17. Then you re-post #12 as if you make some kind of point. Man, you are a moron.
As for the topic, any facts you are presented with you will simply dismiss as paranoia and propaganda. Then respond with some BS about how democrats are delusional and only spout BS.
The conventional Iraq war was an unwaivering success. The aftermath have been a complete failure. There is a reason why Rummy was deemed incompetent. This ‘RDF’ that you site is the primary reason why we are in the mess we are in now. When Generals ask for almost half a million troops and you provide them with only 1/5th of what’s required how do you think it’s going to play out?
You know your in a mess when you have to constantly redefine why your still fighting. Prime Example: ‘President’s New Iraq Strategy Is Rooted In Six Fundamental Elements’
20. js | July 2nd, 2008 at 10:04 am
it actually goes much deeper than your simple minded analogy percieved at Stooge Central, and any debate with the simple minded results in simpleminded irrelivance…hence….this is the reason why pretty much anything and everything your post contains little to no value
just like your snide comments, which reflect nothing more than the ignorance we are used to seeing coming from you….
21. js | July 2nd, 2008 at 10:08 am
it behoves one to detach ones self from sympathy for the lemmings that run over the edge, because when you try to stop them, all they want to do is fight
22. neocon | July 2nd, 2008 at 10:16 am
SAR,
Wouldn’t it be nice if all wars would according to schedule, but historically that’s never been the case, and your expectations that this war should just exposes your ignorance.
There is no question that the post war conflict was not planned for properly, that again though is not the issue. The issue is the current success under the surge, originally advocated by McCain, brilliantly executed by Patreaus, and continuously belittled by Obama.
I can’t wait to see what Obamas position is come November. He just may be a hawk.
peace, neocon
23. Some Assembly Required | July 2nd, 2008 at 10:45 am
Neocon,
When did I say or imply that wars go exactly according to plan?
I’m glad you acknowledge that the situation in Iraq was not planned for properly. As I will acknowledge the ’surge’ has certainly helped matters over there. However, this ’surge’ will not result in stabilization in Iraq anytime soon. If you think that things are gonna be pristine over there by November I think your fooling yourself.
Obama has the ability to ‘belittle’ the success because he stood against the war in the first place. The surge is just another battle in which we have won. In the grand scheme of things, the War is still a failure no matter how you slice it. You know the talking points, I know the talking points but 12 billion a month is not something anyone can ignore. I’m sure you would agree that that money is desperately needed here at home.
I’m tired of arguing over the same things about Iraq, it’s time the Iraqi’s took control. I say give them an ultimatum and stop making them wealthy while American’s lose their houses.
24. Hal Burton | July 2nd, 2008 at 10:45 am
Bush and Chaney consider the war a success because it allowed them to launder money from the US Treasury to their friends in the form of no-bid cost-plus contracts.
The War of Terror is just a money laundering operation, something the Mafia calls a Bust-out.
25. neocon | July 2nd, 2008 at 10:59 am
Hal,
I also heard that Cheney and Bush have exclusive ownership rights to all of the 52 bases. Awesome!
SAR,
You in fact do imply that this war should have gone exactly to plan by claiming that it is a failure because of the after war planning. That was a mistake, but again, what war has been mistake free? And you go on to state that the continuued failure is still due to this miscalculation.
So you did indeed blame your perceived failure of this war because it went off schedule.
It is time the Iraqis took control, and they are. Come November, that will be even more obvious. 16 of 18 benchmarks have been met.
5% of all homeowners nationwide are in trouble. While still a problem, it’s not the catastrophe you paint it to be. And are your neighbors still living in their van? Why don’t you help them?
Finally, I detest people that place a price tag on liberty. We spend $360 billion a year on domestic welfare, which is rife with waste. How about if we start there?
peace, neocon
26. js | July 2nd, 2008 at 11:33 am
last i checked, all the conspiracy theories that bush and cheney was robbing america by appointing thier good ole boys to no bid contracts were crumbling
not one singe charge of criminal activity has be brought, not one iota of impropriety has surfaced, and gao has not tied bush or cheney to any conspiracy to defraud anyone, let alone, the taxpayers and any competitive company in any competitive industry seeking and capable of fulfilling the requirements of these contracts….
so its pretty imputent to even consider the typical liberal arguements because they are all based on lies….
27. Some Assembly Required | July 2nd, 2008 at 11:41 am
Neocon,
First, I know your smarter than that to make such a leap about what I said, in any event I’ll address it. Sure there would have been complications with the original plan, but when you set forth a plan and then only expropriate 1/5th of the resources required to accomplish that plan, well you know what happens.
16 of 18 benchmarks yet the Iraqi’s want us out via UN resolution. I’ve also heard on several occasions that these benchmarks are very fragile. Your stretching my friend if you think that Iraq will be fine in November.
I sincerely hope you are correct though, anything that brings troops home faster and quells the money sink hole I support 100% regardless of whether a democrat or a republican accomplishes it.
28. js | July 2nd, 2008 at 11:50 am
so tell us, what post war strategy did we have before vietnam? Korea? WWII?
wake up folks, post war strategy “theology” is not much more than lemming juice for idiots…
if something needs to be done like iraq, we just need to get it done….instead of dragging our feet for 8 years while saddam played us all for fools under the clinton administration….adding close to a million more victims to saddams regime because of stupidity like “post war strategy” theology….
29. js | July 2nd, 2008 at 11:56 am
and then…..
saddam and his entire regime are gone, done…finished, nada single threat left in the traditional military sense…
what are we seeing in iraq? AQ and Iran financing insurrection…in the case of AQ….the war on terror showed it face in iraq, we didnt drag it there…and in the case of iran….they have commited an act of war against both the US and Iraq sovernty….
what are doing about it?
welll…..because of liberal applications of stupidity…we are pulling another clinton….
the arab world doesnt respect us…the west fought them for over a thousand years before we finally brought the terror pandering muslims to thier knees…and the kaliphate crumbled….around 1 century ago…..with the fall of the ottoman empire…
how quickly we forget the blood stains in the ground that belonged to our forefathers
30. hermie | July 2nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Again, the trolls try to change the subject away from Obama’s changing his position depending on the audience and which way the wind blows.
NAFTA, guns, FISA, taxes, energy; you name it, he’ll give you a position on Tuesday, then change it on Wednesday and the MSM swoons.
31. Kahn | July 2nd, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Look at all the liberal military experts.
32. Rich | July 2nd, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Haha the trolls are out in full force on this thread. fifteen of eigteen benchmarks sounds pretty goody to me. Now Obambi was for the surge? My head is going to blow up.
33. Leo Pusateri | July 2nd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Let’s see…
The Iraqi Parliament passes many more pieces of important legislation than did the U.S. Congress.
44 percent of Iraqis feel that their country is headed in the right direction. On the other hand, only 17 percent of Americans feel the same way.
While idyllic Liberal bastions of power, such as Chicago and Washington D.C., are seeing meteoric rises in violent crime; Baghdad, on the other hand, during a time of war is seeing dramatic decreases in violence.
It would seem that if there are truly any dismal failures to be had here, they lie with the United States congress and other liberal-controlled bastions of power, not in Iraq.
34. Tractatus | July 2nd, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Baghdad, on the other hand, during a time of war is seeing dramatic decreases in violence.
Yes, that’s the sort of thing that happens when lots of people have been killed, lots more people have fled, ethnic cleansing has worked, and we pay both sides to stop shooting.
But I’m sure if you just continue to bury your head in the sand, all of that will go away and you can stick with your sad little talking points.
35. Obama, Wrong then, Wrong &hellip | July 2nd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
[…] Obama’s Dishonest Spin on Iraq […]
36. Kahn | July 2nd, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Where ya get that Tractus? In recent wars, the fight has continued right till the end…
Give it up. The surge was designed to calm the situation enough to make political progress. The deals with the Sunnis are exactly that.
Take off the aluminum foil hat and listen to the refrigerator.
37. Tractatus | July 2nd, 2008 at 8:16 pm
So the U.S. paying off Iraqi militias is now considered “political progress” by the Iraqi government?
That’s…interesting. And by “interesting,” I mean, “really stupid.”
38. Kahn | July 2nd, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Well if men, women, and little kids stop getting killed - then yes.
You’d rather have people being killed? Oh thats right, on American deaths matter to you.
Look you ignorant hack. That’s the way things are done in most of the world. First, the Iraqis are sick of the war. Second, they’re starting to catch on that Al Queda doesn’t give a damn about them (apparently, same as you). Third, they need the work. The Sunni area is the non-oil area. Most of these guys will end up in the Army. It’s not just an adventure, its a job.
But hey, if it makes more “sense” to you to have people die violent deaths, then you have major problems and you should seek help.
You don’t like peace now because its the wrong kind of peace, jeezzzzz.
39. Kahn | July 2nd, 2008 at 9:52 pm
I’ve got to admit that I’m a little disappointed in the lefts desire to continue the violence in Iraq for political purposes. Or for your own twisted evil reasons. Whatever, don’t really care why you want babies to die.
Some of you actual idealistic liberal posters might want to think hard about Tracthead post above, Really. The surge allowed us to make deals - as planned. It is not the USA over there. As you never tire of telling us. We do exactly as you say we should do, and still you attack us.
That’s…interesting. And by “interesting,” I mean, “really stupid.”
40. Tractatus | July 2nd, 2008 at 10:48 pm
You’d rather have people being killed?
Nope, that’d be you. You’re the one who’s pro-war (and who salivates at the thought of blowing up Iran, to boot). By your own metric, you have major problems and should seek help.
I’m glad less people are dying, but I’m also realistic as to why that’s the case instead of pathetically trying to rewrite reality to fit a script that’s politically friendlier. The same cannot be said for you.
Also, you don’t seem to understand what the term “political progress” means, which is why you’re having such a hard time with this discussion. You should work on that. Here’s a hint to get you started: “Political progress” would mean Iraqis deciding for themselves to stop fighting and then working out an agreement to enact; militias merely holding off for a while because an outside government is paying them to do so is not political progress, it’s bribery. And by the way, what happens when we aren’t the ones with the most attractive bribe anymore?
41. Kahn | July 2nd, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Sorry Tractus but bull. I’m all for peace there. I understand that means making deals. You said making deals was “really stupid”. So, whats your alternative? Kill everyone? Leave the area a mess?
We salivate at the thought of bombing Iran? I salivate at the thought of bombing Iran? No you sad little pimple. No.
But Iran IS killing our people now. Iran is killing Iraqis now. Iran is funneling guns, bombs and money into Lebanon, Palestine (if there is such a place), and Afghanistan. So we are not exactly talking about a bunch of little cherubs are we?
And your plan is what? Just pull out of the region. Don’t even pretend to care about the resultant carnage because you hate Bush and you’re willing to ignore dead Iraqi babies all day long… because you hate Bush.
I see the continuing military presence there as a necessary evil. Does it suck? Of course. Violence should ALWAYS be the absolute last resort. The surge created stability so we could make deals. And it worked and we are.
Why does the thought of victory seem so bad to you? Oh yah, dead babies OK because you hate Bush. Right, almost forgot.
_____________________________________
Here is the result of your crowds handling of the departure from Southeast Asia. I guess it was OK because your people hated Nixon.
http://www.vagabonding.com/gallery/archives/000073.html
42. Mark Noonan | July 3rd, 2008 at 12:21 am
extramedium,
I’m rather sorry - and saddened - that you think me that dishonest.
At any rate:
Just one of many, extra. Perhaps you should pay better attention to what is going on?
43. Mark Noonan | July 3rd, 2008 at 12:24 am
Tract,
There’s only one thing wrong with the left’s theory of why violence is down in Iraq - it is backed up by any facts at all. The people who have gone to Iraq and with clear and critical eye looked at the situation all assert that things have improved remarkably economically, politically and militarily. You just don’t want us to win in Iraq because our winning will force you to admit that you were wrong, and that is something a liberal really, really, REALLY hates to do.
44. Kahn | July 3rd, 2008 at 12:40 am
Just realized I was using the wrong example. Dead Iraqi babies? No problem for Tract. Dead Iraqi transsexual prostitutes? OMG NO!
45. extramedium | July 3rd, 2008 at 8:32 am
Mark,
Where in that statement do you hear Susan Rice claiming “Obama always said the “troop surge” would work”? That snippet, even if taken out of context, says nothing of the sort. And that’s what you hold out a sufficient evidence to call a man a liar?
I’m sure if you were to find more of that transcript, you would find that it weakens your case further. I can’t find the transcript, but I bet she confirms that Obama did not support the surge, and that her point is that Obama believes the surge did not deliver the promised results. Have you seen the video or transcript of the entire conversation?
There may be some damning evidence out there that shows Obama is lying about having supported the surge, but you haven’t shown it yet. Until you do, I must maintain that your accusation is shameful.
46. Kahn | July 3rd, 2008 at 9:13 am
“I’m sure if you were to find more of that transcript,”?????
But you didn’t actually read it or listen to it, you’re just sure it MUST be there? Kool-aide tastes great in the morning, doesn’t it?
47. extramedium | July 3rd, 2008 at 10:52 am
Kahn - I would like to, only I can’t find it. Between you and me, I don’t think Mark has seen or read it either. I think he’s based his judgment on a snippet taken out of context from another right-wing blog. Do you have a link to it?
48. Ricorun | July 3rd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
While I’m quite sure Mark took his snippet from another right wing blog, I suspect it’s factually correct — in Jan 2007 Obama did not believe the surge would make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground, and now members of his campaign are claiming he never disputed it would.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4vlBgh7KLg&feature=related
49. extramedium | July 3rd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Rico - I think the talking points Obama’s people are operating from are (1) that the surge has reduced the violence, and that Obama never disputed that adding troops would reduce the violence, and (2) that the objectives set out to justify the surge have not been met - i.e national reconciliation.
Just to put things in perspective, I’m not now, nor have I ever been in the camp with those who want to “pull out now”. I was against going there in the first place, but now that we broke it, we have a moral obligation to fix it - even if it does take 100 years. And, I think it’s good that the violence has waned, regardless of any political implications positive or negative.
With regard to this thread, I merely wish to say I don’t think there is enough evidence here to call Obama a liar. Even that “gotcha” video you pointed me to isn’t quite comparing apples to apples. I know that Mark takes being called a liar very seriously, but doesn’t apply the same standards in calling his enemies liars - the accusations fly around quite liberally in his zeal to denigrate the evil, godless, unpatriotic left. Honestly, I’m quite sure he feels that everybody on the left is a liar, since by his definition they don’t understand the Truth.
50. Tractatus | July 3rd, 2008 at 2:08 pm
You said making deals was “really stupid”.
No, I said your attempt to categorize the US government paying off militias as “political progress by the Iraqis” is really stupid. Step up your reading comprehension, please.
And Noonan, why am I not surprised that you prefer burying your head in the sand and sticking with your laughable talking points to acknowledging reality? Are you seriously arguing that we aren’t paying off militias? That ethnic cleansing hasn’t happened? That millions of Iraqis have been displaced? That neighborhoods are barracaded and segregated? That the Iraqi security forces have been heavily infiltrated by insurgents, meaning that other insurgents don’t attack because they aren’t keen on killing their fellow insurgents?
You are seriously arguing all that. This is one of the many reasons why nobody outside the handful of wingnut cranks on this site takes you at all seriously about Iraq: You prefer political spin to actual facts. I mean, why bother learning anything–or even correcting your more egregious errors–when you can simply parrot the line that “the surge is working!” no matter what the circumstances (remember when an increase in violence also meant the surge was working? Good times…), say that anybody who thinks otherwise just wants America to lose, and consider that well-reasoned analysis?
51. Some Assembly Required | July 3rd, 2008 at 6:03 pm
#33. Leo Pusateri | July 2nd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
“44 percent of Iraqis feel that their country is headed in the right direction. On the other hand, only 17 percent of Americans feel the same way.
The difference here being, in November 73% of Americans will think the country is now headed in the right direction. 56% of Iraqi’s (of the ones that are still living or in country. This is including the ones that have been bribed) will most likely still think their country is headed in the wrong direction.
Today’s lesson, America is a Democracy and free nation. Iraq, functioned better under Saddam and is currently a political nightmare and war zone. But lets continue to compare stats because like Ann Coulter says, Baghdad is similar to the proverbial ghetto in the US.
52. Mark Noonan | July 4th, 2008 at 4:04 am
extra,
Obama said - definitively - that the surge wouldn’t work and, indeed, would make things worse; Obama’s counter-proposal to the surge was to propose a law which would have started our withdrawal immediately and which have got the last US soldier out three months ago.
You can try to say all you want that I’m being shameful - but you really need to think about this, extra: Obama said it would fail; his people are not trying to sell the story that he didn’t say that…he was either lying in 2007, or he’s lying now. Pick one. There’s no third option.
53. soma&hellip | August 20th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
soma disambiguation
soma watson next day no rx required
Leave a Comment
Please report any inappropriate or abusive comments to abuse@blogsforvictory.com. Please include the blog entry title and the comment number.
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed