Posted by PrestoPundit on 05/12/2008


The problem with Obama is that his positions on Iraq were the wrong
ones to embrace based on the facts on the ground at the time.

be specific: When the Bush administration had the wrong
counterinsurgency plan in place, Obama was supportive of it. He told
the Chicago Tribune in July 2004, “There’s not that much
difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this
stage.” While John McCain was calling for more troops and a different
counterinsurgency strategy in 2003, 2004, and 2005, Obama was not.

late 2006, when the situation in Iraq was dire, Obama declared it was
time to “execute a serious change of course in Iraq” — but rather than
advocating a “surge” in troops, he was advocating a “phased
withdrawal.” His predictive judgment was this: “We cannot, through
putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect
that somehow the situation is going to improve.”

In January
2007, when President Bush announced the administration’s change in
strategy in Iraq — which included tens of thousands of additional
troops and a new COIN strategy led by David Petraeus, Obama declared
that nothing in the plan would “make a significant dent in the
sectarian violence that’s taking place there.”

Then, in May
2007, Obama did what he had never done previously: He voted against
funding for combat operations, claiming as a reason the fact that the
bill included no timeline for troop withdrawal. And in September, just
three months after the final elements of the 30,000-strong surge forces
had landed in Iraq and fairly substantial security progress was
discernible, Obama declared that we needed to withdraw combat troops
“immediately.” “Not in six months or a year — now.”

It got so
bad that Obama at first denied progress was being made, then denied
that the surge had anything to do with the progress, and even insisted
(in a debate in January 2008) that the reduction in violence was due
not to the work of the American military but to the results of the 2006
midterm election in America. Finally Obama was forced by the
overwhelming evidence to concede the surge had made progress — yet in
the process Obama misrepresented his past position, insisting that when
the surge was announced, he had “no doubt” that “if we place 30,000
more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security
situation and we would see a reduction in violence.”

Notice that once again — and we’re discovering this with issues both big and small — we can find Obama lying, b*llsh*tt*ng his way around his past history and his past mistakes.  We’ve got more than a trend here, folks, we’ve got this man’s character in the cross hairs.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: