OF THIS:
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.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.
To 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.
In 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."
Leave a comment