Obama wrote an editorial in the pages of the New York Times today and boy can he dance.
In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.
But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.
Oh please. Obama opposed the surge because he didn’t think it would work.
“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)
“[E]ven those who are supporting — but here’s the thing, Larry — even those who support the escalation have acknowledged that 20,000, 30,000, even 40,000 more troops placed temporarily in places like Baghdad are not going to make a long-term difference.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 3/19/07)
“And what I know is that what our troops deserve is not just rhetoric, they deserve a new plan. Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe that the course that we’re on in Iraq is working, I do not.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks To The Coalition Of Black Trade Unionists Convention, Chicago, IL, 5/25/07)
“My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.” (NBC’s “The Today Show,” 7/18/07)
“Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn’t withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a search and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 11/11/07)
He was wrong and instead of admitting this fact he hems and haws about the cost, the war in Afghanistan, and the political situation which by the way is moving along quite well as the US Embassy report stated 15 of the 18 benchmarks have been met. As for Afghanistan, if he cared that much about the country you think maybe he would of voted aye in May of 07 instead of nay?
Obama Voted Against Providing $94.4 Billion In Critical Funding For The Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Nay)
His op-ed was wrong on the assertion that Maliki stated he wanted a withdrawal of our troops:
The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity.
The key statement cited by Mr Obama and others was made by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki last Monday in his address to Arab ambassadors in the United Arab Emirates.
The prime minister was widely quoted as saying that in the negotiations with the Americans on a Status of Forces Agreement to regulate the US troop presence from next year, “the direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on a timetable for their withdrawal”.
That was the version of Mr Maliki’s remarks put out in writing by his office in Baghdad.
It was widely circulated by the news media, and caught much attention, including that of Mr Obama.
There is only one problem. It is not what Mr Maliki actually said.
In an audio recording of his remarks, heard by the BBC, the prime minister did not use the word “withdrawal”.
What he actually said was: “The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence.”
Even the Iraqi National Security Adviser said something that sound suspiciously like what Bush and McCain have been saying for quite some time:
He said the talks were focused on agreeing on “timeline horizons, not specific dates”, and said that withdrawal timings would depend on the readiness of the Iraqi security forces.
To put his foot in his mouth even more Obama wrote:
Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been.
Cough. Osama said this about Iraq a few years ago:
“Third World War is raging”
And Zawahiri said the following in a letter to Zarqawi:
I want to be the first to congratulate you for what God has blessed you with in terms of fighting battle in the heart of the Islamic world, which was formerly the field for major battles in Islam’s history, and what is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era
Seems the terrorists think Iraq is the central front, why don’t you Senator?
Shoddy piece of work by a shoddy politician. Basically he strung together a bunch of old tired Democrat talking points and then threw it all into a op-ed….sad
See author page