Politicizing Iraq…. again: GOP gets sucker punched by Obama/left media stolen thunder

Loading

It can’t be surprising that the US OIF endeavor in Iraq will, once again, be taking center-stage for political spin. What will also be unsurprising is that again the wool will be pulled over the eyes of a nation who apparently suffers from short term memory dysfunction, and gets a failing grade in current events. And the last non-surprise is that the political bear trap of spin, carefully being laid by the left, clamps tight on the appendages of the GOP, happy to saunter right on in, blind to it’s presence.

Case in point? As per the originAL SOFA agreement, negotiated between the Bush admin and Iraq at the end of 2008, and signed by Ryan Crocker US armed forces are to be totally withdrawn from Iraq by the end of the three year contract on Jan 1st, 2012.

There were mitigating circumstances that could change the agreement, were both parties to mutually agree. For example, the timeline could have been accelerated had either party given one year’s notice to the other. This did not happen. It also left open the ability to renegotiate at the end of the period for a new agreement and terms, should either party do so. However there was no obligation to renegotiate, nor to agree to any terms in advance.

So what we have is a Bush withdrawal of troops, as negotiated. And a kudos to Obama for not choosing to renege on that good faith contract – despite his 2007 attempt as a soon-to-be-campaigning-for-POTUS Senator Obama – to push legislation for a March 2008 withdrawal. This is a perfect success story of Iraq independence and troop withdrawal for the GOP to embrace on the campaign trail.

But since the GOP seems to play the part of unwitting dupes well, and current events is not the forte of either media, or a vigilant citizenry, the wheels are in obvious motion for Obama to steal the thunder. Just as was done by a fawning media in 2009, not calling out deception when Obama was portraying the SOFA’s timeline as his own shortly after his inauguration, the media myth is perpetuated today by MSNBC’s Michael O’Brien, declaring adherence to the deadline is “in keeping with the timeline Obama first established in early 2009, when he first laid out a timetable for withdrawal.”

It’s a good line, as long as you can find enough history challenged citizens to buy into it. And just to make sure this Bush/Iraq SOFA, signed over a month before the Obama’s moved their duds into the White House, is continued to be attributed to the wrong POTUS, we have a year of presidential campaign political wrangling and spinning to repeat the lie in order to revise history.

But such bland stuff of honoring a three year old contract doesn’t have the punch without some accompanying drama, and the predictable attempts to make the opposition look like war mongers. Enter the quiet attempts between Iraq and the Obama admin reps on leaving about 5000 troops for training post the Bush SOFA deadline. The sticking point? They want to change the rules about immunity for our troops while there, allowing them to be prosecuted in Iraqi courts for any offenses.

The original SOFA clearly laid out jurisdictional powers in Article 12.

1. Iraq shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the United States Forces and of the civilian component for the grave premeditated felonies enumerated pursuant to paragraph 8, when such crimes are committed outside agreed facilities and areas and outside duty status.

2. Iraq shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over United States contractors and United States contractor employees.

3. The United States shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the United States Forces and of the civilian component for matters arising inside agreed facilities and areas; during duty status outside agreed facilities and areas; and in circumstances not covered by paragraph 1.

4. At the request of either Party, the Parties shall assist each other in the investigation of incidents and the collection and exchange of evidence to ensure the due course of justice.

As part of their request for an add’l 5000 troops for training – down from last year’s considerations for 8000 to 20,000 – Iraqi officials and Parliament wanted to remove the US jurisdiction… and to the Obama admin officials credit, they said absolutely not. I couldn’t agree more.

Max Boot, in his Oct 21st op-ed for Commentary Magazine, opined this refusal to comply with the additional troops, and not negotiate some compromise for immunity by forcing an Iraqi Parliamentary vote for protections, is “…far from being cause for celebration.” Boot, while noting there is still time for US attorneys to enter the picture, believes that 10,000 – not the 5000 that the Iraqis requested – are necessary to maintain the stability that the US has helped to achieve.

However the opinions of Iraqi lawmakers are mixed on both extending the US troops welcome and the questions of their immunity. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has point blank told US officials that the votes to keep troop protections post SOFA are simply not there. The other aside is that both al-Maliki and Obama are astutely aware than no agreement benefits them both politically with constituents.

Naturally Huffpo writers, LARA JAKES and REBECCA SANTANA, seize the opportunity to hype the already laid out process with a screaming headline that the US is “abandoning plans to keep troops in Iraq”. Wouldn’t it be prudent for someone to advise them that, according to the original agreement, there were no plans for troops beyond Jan 1st, 2012?

Of course, one might ask one’s self just why a left leaning rag like Huffpo would want to imply that their hero, Obama, was “abandoning” Iraq. After all, aren’t they, as a community, well documented as being anti-Iraq from the get go?

That’s exactly the point. The direct answer to why Huffpo is screaming “abandonment” is the politics of a political campaign. Is there any credit and admiration due to Obama – who has been vocally against US troops in Iraq since prior to his US Congressional arrival – for honoring terms in the Bush/Iraq agreement, decided prior to the “da one’s” rise to power?

Of course not….

Then again, if the left spin media can portray this as an agonizing decision, emphasizing a great deal of risk to the cost of blood and money the US has shed in helping Iraq become an Arab democracy, they can effectively pull their anti-war left back on the Obama bandwagon by casting him as a leader who “kept promises” to withdraw, despite overwhelming odds.

Of course, for that argument to fly, you’re going to have to convince a war weary public that either 5000 or 10,000 troops for training purposes are going to significantly alter Iraq’s own course of progress and stability. That’s a long stretch for anyone’s imagination. But the Iraq withdrawal event has no positive impact for a flailing Obama presidency without some adversity to overcome, resulting in the favor of his far left base. So the drama and hype must be spin for any kind of tangible political benefit.

MSNBC’s Michael O’Brien (linked above in paragraph five) fully admits this is the case when he says:

And for as much friendly fire that the president has taken from the left for unfinished campaign trail promises, Obama’s move to withdraw troops marks a moment of deep satisfaction for his base, whom he’s courting again heading into next fall’s election.

It also helps burnish Obama’s foreign policy credentials on top of a string of accomplishments this year. Khaddafy’s death Thursday in Libya provided some measure of validation of the president’s measured strategy toward the rebellion there. U.S. predator drones also managed to assassinate a major al-Qaeda figure, Anwar al-Awlaki, last month. And Obama’s scored perhaps no greater achievement than the successful killing of Osama bin Laden earlier this year in Pakistan — something to which Obama made reference Friday.

Of course, we have the added problem of GOP candidates falling for this trick, hook line and sinker. It’s no coincidence that Michael O’Brien tag teams his hype by reporting that Romney is up in arms about the decision to honor the original SOFA… and that unnamed scores of GOP agree.

Romney sharply criticized the announcement this afternoon by Obama that all troops would leave Iraq by the end of 2011, fulfilling one of Obama’s main promises from the 2008 campaign, that he would end the war in Iraq.

“President Obama’s astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women,” Romney said in a statement. “The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government.”

Romney’s sentiment is in tune with what Republicans have said Friday afternoon; most GOP voices have expressed concern that the withdrawal would imperil progress made after almost nine years’ worth of war in Iraq.

“I feel all we have worked for, fought for, and sacrificed for is very much in jeopardy by today’s announcement. I hope I am wrong and the President is right, but I fear this decision has set in motion events that will come back to haunt our country,” said South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the most vocal proponents of the war, in a statement.

MSNBC isn’t the only one to seize the moment of opportunity. The LA Times official (meaning “unnamed”) op-ed takes the ball and runs with their title, “On Iraq, Obama’s GOP critics take the political low road.”

Are you getting a grip on the game plan yet? Have you kept in mind this is all about *five thousand troops there for training purposes only?* Sucker punch, indeed.

Yes… one can hear the leftist MSNBC’s drums of war soundtrack – probably an old Paul Simon archived track – snickering as they gleefully set up the GOP fools for playing the war mongers over the next year….

… did I mention this was all over 5000, not combat, but training personnel???

Unfortunately, Herman Cain’s handlers didn’t prepare the candidate for the trap either. Cain stepped into the bear trap not only willingly, but made sure it clamped tight around his ankles when he not only donned the war monger mask, but blamed the SOFA agreement on Obama.

….sigh… It appears that consultants for the GOP field better start getting educated to the way the game is played, and stop helping the opposition by being the moth drawn to the light in the bug zapper.

So it will be another year of Iraq as a campaign issue… only this time attempting to make a non story, *the* story of Obama heroism, while still hijacking the credit and truth of withdrawal timetable schedule from Bush and the Iraqis. And, of course, the GOPers are already jumping on the band wagon to claim the war monger title that, if they thought for a minute, is far more attributable to this Commander in Chief. Talk about letting a great moment go to waste…. it’s a time to be shouting that the Bush withdrawal should be adhered to, and not allow that wind to go into Obama’s sails.

In the end, enough is enough. The troop numbers requested, and their tasks, will not make a dent in the Iraqis continued progress. And if they are so necessary, they can acquiesce to US terms for their presence. If not, it’s time to go home and see how the Iraqis do on their own.

~~~

Mini-update here with another lost opportunity, slipping thru the GOP’s fingers on Iraq. It was never the Bush admin’s intention to have permanent bases in Iraq, as even the liberal Salon pointed out in 2006. Within that article are quotes from Def Sec’y Rumsfeld, CentCom commander Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmett, and Karen Hughes, reiterating we wanted to get the job done, and leave.

But all that has changed, and it is now the Obama administration, playing war monger-in-chief. Why? The less than stellar harbingers of those so called “freedom fighters” in the Arab Spring uprisings, and the unstability in their aftermath, providing inroads to radical anti-American jihad groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.

The question now is why the US is insistent upon keeping up the presence despite the costs.

For sure, the recent developments in the Arab world, the fall of the Tunisian and Egyptian dictators and the prospect of change in the configuration of the Persian Gulf Arab regimes would affect the US decision to remain in Iraq.

The changes, which have so far taken place, are definitely not in the interests of the US and the Israeli regime. Washington is, therefore, seriously concerned about the upheavals.

The crisis in the tiny island of Bahrain has compelled the US to seek a new location for its Fifth Fleet.

From the perspective of the US, Iraq, having passed the stage of the Arab uprisings, will enjoy greater stability in the future compared to other small Persian Gulf states.

Again… sucker punched. Letting Obama seize the Bush/Iraq success as his own, twisting the negotiations to make him look like the leftist hero to appease his base, and dodging the reality that it is Obama – not Bush – who wants to permanently occupy Iraq.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
39 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

….sigh… It appears that consultants for the GOP field better start getting educated to the way the game is played, and stop helping the opposition by being the moth drawn to the light in the bug zapper.

Someone should forward Mata’s post to the Cain camp. 😉

And you’d think the Romney team would be a bit more astute about this.

The GOP couldn’t find it’s ass with both hands tied behind it’s back. Honestly, we need a real opposition party in DC, not these losers.

Good article, Mata.

A year from now in Iraq, Sahara winds will have erased all traces of our soldiers’ bootprints. The country will be embroiled in conflict. And Israel will be forced to stand alone, shadowed by the protection of a sovereign Lord.

@Ivan: Ivan, your an amazing Kool Aid drinking idiot. The Republican Party is alive and well and as they did in the last election, which was an historic defeat of Demoncrats, they will move your community organizer out as well. Get a grip on reality dude!!

The one job President ZERO said he could do in Iraq was to negotiate…

Phfffttt…!!! 🙄

…Just one more FAIL in a long list of FAILURES from the Teleprompter-in-Chief 😳

Sorry to say, we cut and run in Afghanistan. It was negotiated in 2007. Best infantry ever invented and the world knows it. We have the top ten shots except for a marine gunny at number six. Unfortunately, my regiment took most of the Canadian losses at more than 100. We are the mighty PPCLI. Google them.

What really pisses me off is that Edmonton has taken over the PPCLI that was established in Calgary. Remember people, PPCLI was your base for Special forces. Learn your history!

Mata: 10.0!

Someone else (who you link to in another commentary of his) who points out failed negotiations on the part of the Obama Administration:

Both sides let politics drive the process, rather than security concerns

Mata– I’ll ask you the same question I asked on another forum: “Does Iraq get to keep all our military hardware?” Is the U.S. going to leave all the helicopters, Humvees, Strykers, weapons, ammunition, communication equipment, etc. etc?

@MataHarley: Good analysis. The two major objectives of OIF were regime change and the installation of a democratic form of government, at least one that is is as democratic as one could hope for in that part of the world. Both have been accomplished so OIF was an American military victory. It was accomplished without much support from the Democrats. As a matter of fact, most of them did everything in their power to undermine the mission there. The biggest supporter was Joe Lieberman and they ran him out their party because of it. They deserve zero credit but no doubt the MSM will give Obama and company all of the credit. When I left out of there after my first tour in early 2004, we were the ones taking the lead in the projects rebuilding the country. When I went back for my second tour in 2008, we were moinitoring the Iraqis as they were the ones taking the lead in rebuilding their country. Hopefully they have continued and will continue to progress. The country has enormous potential.

As for the John Kerry statement you referenced in #12, given his previous charges against those of us who served over there, i.e. terrorizing women and children in the middle of the night, telling kids to get a college education or they’ll end up in Iraq, that horse’s ass can stick his compliments where the sun don’t shine.

Mata– I like your idea of a garage sale, but somehow I don’t see that happening. Regarding shipping things back, I don’t think it would be that expensive – just load up a few cargo ships. Even beat up Humvees would sell for a lot here in the States. Once again, I don’t see that happening either. It will be like Iran where we sold them F-14s in 1976 and then they were eventually used against us.

@MataHarley #12:

Yes, Mr. Wordsmith… I had read not only that FP article, but the August 2011 Foreign Policy article, quoting the Iraq ambassador as saying they’ll agree to troops and terms “…in our own sweet time.”

Yah, I updated my comment shortly after posting to note your inclusion of the other Josh Rogin link. Good post. MSM and the GOP need more astute observers such as yourself pointing these things out.

My liberal friends are all fully convinced this is an Obama win and a feather in his cap.

@MataHarley: I can imagine about how you feel about the legend in his own mind, John Kerry, considering your husband would have been one of those whose service he demeaned.

If Iraq stays the course, they will be a very valuable ally in that region. They are strategically located between two of the big problem children, Iran and Syria, something the left can’t seem to comprehend despite their vast intellectual superiority to the rest of us imbecales.

@MataHarley:

If conservatives, the candidates and even the more conservative media allow this to happen, you can count me disgusted with all of them for pretty much the last time.

I’ve long been frustrated and disappointed by how superficial GOP politicians have been in their knowledge base on the al-Qaeda network/global-international jihad and in defending the decision to invade Iraq and “stay the course”.

another vet,
hi,
glad you are safe after those 2 tours, in a time of critical concern FOR THE TROOPS
regarding the IRAKI WAR, as the AFGHANISTAN WAR

@Hi Mata,

This is really creative. So your hypothesis is that Bush deserves the credit for exiting Iraq, not Obama, and the GOP are foolishly failing to claim said credit, and instead, for obvious politically expedient reasons, turning on the idea of leaving Iraq, because they are accepting the whole ‘it’s Obama’s doing’ feather in the cap thing. Well, if your point is that the GOP candidates are, collectively, a national embarrassment, yes, as they’ve well established, that’s a good point and well made.

but the problem with your theory is that, in any practical sense, it is Obama’s doing. You yourself point out that the SOFP “left open the ability to renegotiate at the end of the period for a new agreement and terms, should either party do so.” So who, I wonder, has more power over whether the US forces in Iraq exit Iraq in 2012, the current sitting US President or George Bush? Obviously, in a war zone with US interests and troops in the balance (not to mention it being 3 years later), it’s foolish to think that what GWB wrought in 2008 would carry more weight than what the current administration would deem correct to do in 2011/12. It’s quite touching though, to think you’re such a big fan of ‘W” to think so. I bet he also fortold the Rangers in the 2011 series. heh heh heh.

I would be curious to see graphed what you and your FA crew think the sitting US President does and doesn’t deserve credit for. Apparently, killing terrorists, even OBL, and the duties of the CIC actually reflect upon the previous President’s watch. But to balance the scales, the curent President gets full credit for any once-in-a-100-year economic meltdown that might happen a year before he takes office. That’s the type of trade off that might inspire a Dr John post a day.

Tom
hi, where where you all this time,
concerning the exit date, was settle by the president BUSH, BUT THEY HAD THE LIBERTY TO NEGOCIATE FURTHER EXTENSION OR EARLYER EXIT TIME, AS LONG AS THEY DECIDE ONE YEAR IN ADVANCE,
so, there was negotiation to those decision making and to keep the immunity for the troups who are there to train the IRAKIS, and the IRAKI PRESIDENT, wanted the AMERICANS TO BE UNDER THE IRAK LAW ONLY,THEY DID NOT WANT THEM TO KEEP THE PROTECTION OF THE US, AS IT WAS DONE
when all the troops where there with IRAK IMMUNITY AND USA PROTECTION,
SO THE DEAL WAS CHANGE FOR 5000 TROOPS LEFT THERE AS TRAINER, AND THE WAY IT WOULD HAVE WORK WOULD HAVE BEEN DANGEROUS FOR THE 5000 LEFT THERE WITH ONLY THE IMMUNITY,
BUT NO PROTECTION FROM US WHICH THE IRAKI PRESIDENT WANTED TO BE REMOVE,
SO OBAMA DECLARE ALL THE TROOPS OUT, WHICH WHERE ONLY 5000 AND ONLY THERE TO TRAIN,
BUT MATA FOUND A SKEEM IN IT THAT THE LEFT HAD A FIX TO MAKE A GAIN FOR CLAIMING THE GOLD ALL TO HIM, MATA KNOWS DON’T BE WORRY, and cut the arrogance
BYE

@ilovebeeswarzone:

Thanks, Bees. I’m glad you agree with me.

Actually, I give Obama credit for adhering to the Bush/Iraq SOFA, and not evoking the one year termination provision.

You have a funny way of expressing it, not that I don’t enjoy the tortured rhetorical gymnastics that result when extreme partisanship runs counter to oft expressed principle (and in this case, common sense). So where you could have simply pointed out your appreciation for the President honoring the SOFA (it was, as you must now admit HIS decision to do so), and then pointed out the incoherence and downright stupidity of the responses by most of the GOP candidates, you decide to come at it from a different angle. Apparently, this is just another example of Obama’s moral turpitude. Apparently by announcing this withdrawal, the idiot/genius Obama (on FA he is either or both, depending on which is needed, and usually with an “evil” thrown in for good measure) set a trap for the GOP to fall into, so that’s on Obama, not the people whose mouths the words actually emanated from. And the conclusions you draw from these events are that, while Obama did the right thing, the act and its ramification are secondary to the perception of credit taken; and the reactions of the GOP candidate field, which you clearly disagree with (and which certainly deserve scrutiny considering any of them could be making these decisions two years hence), are only important in the sense of how they reflect upon Obama. To be more succinct: If Obama hadn’t done something you agree with, the GOP field wouldn’t have said things you disagree with, and that’s all Obama’s fault.

Here’s what a typical GOP (2011 edition) candidate for President thinks about the concept of national sovereignty. Michele Bachman apparently has the Presidential notion that the war in Iraq is like buying a TV at Best Buy, and then not getting to keep it. And gosh darn it, she’s doggone angry!

We’ve put a lot of deposit into this situation with Iraq. And to think that we are so disrespected and they have so little fear of the United States that there would be nothing that we would gain from this … We are there as the nation that liberated these people. And that’s the thanks that the United States is getting after 4,400 lives were expended and over $800 billion? And so on the way out, we’re being kicked out of the country? I think this is absolutely outrageous.

You get the candidates you deserve.

TOM,
don’t show so much outrage ,
where where you when the side you’re protecting was doing worse on the PRESIDENT BUSH,
IT WAS ALL OVER THEIR MEDIA propaganda, to sell to the public an OBAMA which they could not find better qualfications than to demonise the PRESIDENT BUSH,
so this here is just a token , to make sure the credit goes to the one PREVIOUS PRESIDENT, WHO DID THE RIGHT THING, FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR TO MAKE SURE THEY WOULD GET OUT OF IT,
ONCE THE DANGER IS ELIMINATED,
but new factors came into the deal that is IRAN, which gave the military concern to raise the question of leaving some protection behind, and they turn out to be right, just by the way the IRAK PRESIDENT IS ACTING NOW, BUT EVEN THAT BEHAVIOR THEY TALK ON YOUR SIDE IS NOT PROVEN TRUE,
BECAUSE THE MILITARY WHERE CONFIDENT THAT PREVIOUS DEMAND OF IMMUNITY AND PROTECTION FROM THE US FOR THE TROOPS TRAINING THERE HAS BEEN ASSURED BEFORE, AND THAT LAST TURNABOUT TO NEGATE THE PREVIOUS AGREEMENT IS SAID TO BE THE ARRIVAL OF THE GOVERNMENT PEOPLE PUTTING PRESSURE ON THE IRAK, TOO MUCH WHICH REULTED IN THAT LAST ANNOUNCEMENT, AND DON’T FORGET THE MEMOS THAT WAS FOUND BY MATA WHICH LED HER TO WRITE THE POST ON THE LIB EFFORTS TO MAKE THIS A unworthy and false POLITICAL GAIN FOR OBAMA,
AS YOU BEEN WITNESSING, THEY ARE SO DOWN AND DESPPERATE, they will do anything to gain votes.

As I said, the withdrawal of troops is Bush’s decision

Really? Don’t be preposterous. Obviously there is a ton of sentiment on the Right for staying in Iraq interminably (as Bachmann would tell you, we bought and paid for that privilege), so I can’t imagine it would be very difficult for Obama to keep us there longer if he wanted to. I don’t care if there was an agreement in place, if something had happened warranting a change of plans, it would have happened. This is a major national security decision. They’re not going to say, “let’s do what Bush thought we should do three years ago”. As much as it pains you, the world wasn’t frozen in amber the day GWB left office. Things change and the current boss gets the credit or blame.

As for credit given or taken, I’m sorry it continues to offend your delicate sensibilities that Obama hasn’t commissioned a stature of George W Bush by now and signed over 100% of the credit for everything you approve of that he’s done in the last three years. I know this was a bee in your bonnet when Bin Laden was killed, and I continue to be mildly amazed at the degree to which this annoys and surprises you. If you’re naive enough to think that politicians don’t routinely take credit for things that happen on their watch, decisions for which they will primarily be judged, I don’t know what to tell you. That’s American politics. You sort of have to toot your own horn if you want someone to vote for you. This isn’t the 1925 county fair dance where it’s considered gauche to do more than flutter your eyes in anticipation of capturing a suitor’s interest. And if you think only politicians on the Left brag about their accomplishments, maybe the GOP debates are on past your bedtime. Honestly, when you start trotting out these silly “Alinksy crowd” campfire tales, regaling us with the Left’s perfidious deeds, it’s pretty clear you’re at a loss.

Besides, while Obama has rightfully reminded voters that he promised to bring the troops home from Iraq, he also carefully worded his statement about the promise being kept to the government of Iraq was one made by the United States, not Barack Obama:

A few hours ago I spoke with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. I reaffirmed that the United States keeps its commitments.

@Tom:

Besides, while Obama has rightfully reminded voters that he promised to bring the troops home from Iraq, he also carefully worded his statement about the promise being kept to the government of Iraq was one made by the United States, not Barack Obama:

A few hours ago I spoke with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. I reaffirmed that the United States keeps its commitments.

And so, by your own admission, The WonTM is not making good on a commitment or promise that he made…but he is, instead, eagerly taking credit for that which he was already contractually bound to upon his Immaculation.

What, precisely, was your point again?

What, precisely, was your point again?

This is a rather obscure argument, as befits an obscurest original post. My point is that I find it ludicrous to focus on Obama’s alleged credit grab, when the real story here is the GOP field’s apparently universal foreign policy ignorance and stupidly, as expressed in their Pavlovian anti-anything-Obama-does reactions. Don’t you think it’s slightly disturbing that the GOP frontrunner (according to some polls) doesn’t even know what a neocoservativen is? Or do you agree the main focus of our departure from Iraq should be Obama’s decision not to hang a “mission accomplished” style banner from the White House congratulating GWB on his successful completion of the Iraq war? Mata plays at presenting both sides, but in reality the entire post is an attempt to shift focus and blame for the GOP’s muddled reaction back onto Obama, an attempt that really isn’t very persuasive.

@Tom:

Your desperate attempts to shift the focus through the construction of straw man arguments rather than address the topic thoroughly answers the question that I posed.

Thanks for playing.

@Aye:

You’re welcome. Thank you for sharing your perspective and providing me with constructive criticism. This is a very polite forum.

@MataHarley:

Obama has spent his pathetically short political career railing against everything in Iraq that has worked. He assumed office, locked into a binding legal agreement made by the previous administration, so he’s spent his time in office pretending that legal agreement was at his bidding and design.

And apparently Obama has no choice in the matter. Apparently, not changing or cancelling a Bush era program or policy isn’t making a choice, isn’t making a judgement. It’s nice to know Bush put training wheels on our foreign policy so all Obama had to do was peddle really hard with his eyes closed. “Look at me, mommy! I’m running a war!”