THEN – Obama Didn’t Think Surge Of Troops Would Work; NOW – Never Disputed A Surge Of Troops Would Work


Ah yes. The man who was “right” when he voted against the war (doh! what am I saying, he wasn’t in Congress at the time….well, he was still against it). The man who is omni-prescient about the war. Except he has pretty much gotten everything wrong about the war.

McCain said on the same day and on the same show:

“I think the case still needs to be made,” McCain said this morning, calling the debate so far “superficial.” “This is about a new strategy, of which an increase in troop strength is an integral part.”

The deployment of 21,500 additional troops is part of a new plan to secure Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, McCain said. “We will go in and we will clear and hold and build,” he said. “As most people know, we have gone in and cleared and left and the insurgents have returned… Do I believe it can succeed? Yes, I do.”

Hmmmm….who was right there? Well, according to Axelrod today Obama was right also since he really DID feel that the surge of troops would work before he felt the surge of troops wouldn’t work.

Do I have that right? Gets kinda confusing ala….John Kerry flip flopping. He sure is about change tho…..change change and more change.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

THIS is exactly the tool and catalyst that will shape and determine the 2008 elections.

GREAT find.

BTW, great question floating around the web I see: “Why doesn’t Barack meet with Iran now?” Pelosi, Reid, Kucinich, Kerry, and many other Dem leaders already met with Syria. Why not Iran?

Oh wait…sorry. I forgot. Iran doesn’t want to meet w them, and if they DID meet, then their claims about being able to use diplomacy to stop the Iranians from killing Americans would be proven DOA before 1600 PA.

The video was “No longer available” and now its back. I wonder why?

I believe the distinction is one of degree: Axelrod: “difference”; Obama: “substantial difference”.

“He sure is about change tho…..change change and more change.”

I think Obama is more about Che’nge than Change.

obama is aboiut obama and nothing else. he wants to be president so his wifey can be proud of her nation. he is high, seriously, he doesn’t even know where he stands day to day. what the hell will he do once he is pesident? that is a scarey question.

Even Doug can’t find the weasel words to try and paper over this example.

Obama is all about “change.” He changes his mind from one day to the next depending on whichever way the political wind is blowing.

I warned everyone months ago that when it is absolutely undeniable that the surge is working and we have met the conditions that PRESIDENT BUSH spelled out for VICTORY in Iraq: a country that can govern itself, defend itself and be an ally in the war on terror that Dems would try and deny they ever opposed winning and try and claim credit.

We can laugh ourselves silly when Dems come out and try and suggest that we are only winning in Iraq because of the pressure Dems put on to withdraw, but you know there is a ready market for liberal malarkey. They’ll believe almost anything.


Obama is what he is: a fairly bright weasel who has used modern racial zeitgeist to leverage himself to a position of enormous prominence. If I were in his shoes and, like him, had no moral compass, I would do exactly the same thing.

What drives me into a frenzy is the fact that the media, rather than playing the gotcha game with him, is entirely complicit. They too appreciate the zeigeist, but they have no excuse for abandoning their role as watchdog in the political arena. Thank God the media’s monopoly is fading as the internet nips at its heels. The day of real competition in the marketplace of ideas can’t happen soon enough.

Bookworm: I don’t remember the last time the media played their role as “watchdog” in the political arena.

Wait a minute… I take that back. Anytime a Republican does anything wrong, or is even ACCUSED of doing anything wrong they are all over it.

While shielding their liberal pals from the same scrutiny.

How else can we explain that Senate Majority Leader Harry GREED is still in office?