After Visiting Iraq Obama Won’t Acknowledge That The Surge Is A Success

Stuck On Stupid ^ | July 22, 2008 | Quaker

[Quaker]

Barack Obama on his “Most Excellent World Tour” (The Iraq Stop) defends his position that the surge in Iraq did not work. In an interview on ABC (All Barack Channel) Obama would not acknowledge that the surge in Iraq has been successful.

(Video Included)

[Quaker]

Barack the hopeless joke without a teleprompter

[60Gunner]

The fact that the Obamanation has not been killed in Iraq is due to one of two things:

1: The troop surge worked, or

2: The Islamobastards want the SOB to win the election.

[polymuser]

Obama will display in spotlights the cognitive dissonance that is the hallmark of the neoliberal left, and the more he does, the meaner he gets and the more he flails in the eyes of those with common sense.

[Diogenesis]

Obama: Why the Surge Worked: Ethnic Cleansing?

“But,” asked Moran,”if the country had pursued your policy of withdrawing in the face of this horrific violence,
what do you think Iraq would look like now?”

Obama said it would be hard to speculate. “The Sunnis might have made the same decisions at that time.
The Shii’as might have made some similar decisions based on political calculation.
There was ethnic cleansing in Baghdad that actually took the violence level down,”
the Democratic Anti-American messiah said.

[Jeff Head]

Obama can't grasp, or will fail to acknowledge, due to his own anti-American and marxist tunnel vision, any of the following points regarding the war in Iraq and the impact on Iran:

McCain called for an got the surge strategy in Iraq...and it is clearly working.

Going into Iraq was no mistake. An abject tyrant, and friend to our enemies, was brought down and tens of millions of people given an opportunity for liberty. Besides, look at a map. We have Iran, the largest state sponsor of terror hemmed in on three sides. Iran can not got to the bathroom without us knowing about it and being able to do something about it. And they know it, and that geo-political reality is no accident.

The terrorists are hiding in holes, or dying when they come out and are unable to attack us here. They fear our remote controlled, unmanned predator and reaper aircraft, knowing that day or night they can see them and kill them with no chance whatsoever of martydom.

But Obama says we are less safe now and that the "strategy" has failed. Well, I have a question or two about that in light of the foregoing.

How is it less safe for us here to have the principle state sponsor of terror so hemmed in by our forces?

How is it less safe for us here to be developing two free, constitutional republics in the middle east to the chagrin and spite of the totalitarian jihadists there, showing the people of the entire region that there is a hope for freedom?

How it is less safe for us here to have so shut down the terror network that gave us 911 that they have not been able to execute another terror attack on our soil since?

Any objective, common sense look at the geopolitical situation simply punctuates the success of the policy of taking this fight to this enemy...and McCain has improved it, not lessened or weakened it.

Obama is looking more and more desperate, more an dmore foolish in the face of continued success, and, OBTW, that is a success born of volunteers who reapply for service in large percentages who have been there, seen the enemy, defeated him, and know the importance of the mission.

CHOOSING THE NEXT PRESIDENT

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA - CHANGE YOU CAN COUNT ON, BUT DON'T WANT

THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH ABOUT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

[PGR88]

Isnt’ it obvious? By going to Iraq, Obama is admitting Iraq is a success!
- it’s now a place for a “statesman” to go
- it’s safe for him to go
- he needs to go now or be obviously stuck in the loser’s corner
- conversely, if Iraq was in chaos, he would simply stand back and tsk, tsk, like before.

[rightwinggoth]

it would be safe for him to go regardless considering how beloved he is by those who hate america.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

he has a problem:

Obama's Speech at Woodrow Wilson Center ( Published August 1, 2007 ....revisiting History is useful)

In which he said:

**************************EXCERPT****************************

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I introduced a plan in January that would have already started bringing our troops out of Iraq, with a goal of removing all combat brigades by March 31, 2008. If the President continues to veto this plan, then ending this war will be my first priority when I take office.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Nailing this Flip Flopper.....

[Marine_Uncle]

This guy ought to go back to being a neighborhood organizer.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Ernest.

[AdmSmith]

Obama’s Message to Kurdistan: You Don't Count

By: Sabah Salih

July 29, 2008

Barrack Obama is by and large the creation of an American media that has grown intensely militant in its opposition to the revolutionary changes in Iraq and Kurdistan.

Less than two years ago, the Illinois senator was not even a speck on the horizon. But in the mounting American casualties and increased violence in Iraq, now both dramatically reduced, the media saw an opportunity to catapult the junior senator into the national and international spotlight with one simple message: Bush, not Saddam, was the guilty party, and American needed to get out of Mesopotamia no matter the consequences.

The media quickly turned this mother-of-all distortions into a national mantra and the messenger into a national savior - a new Lincoln, in fact. In a country where keeping track of history - even recent history -is considered bothersome (even for journalists), where image holds far more sway than the word, and where quick fixes are a national obsession, the Obama message struck a chord. Around a slogan as vast as America itself, Obama offered tantalizing simplifications; the wretched word “change” had to (and still has to) endure it all. The more-than-a-decade-long history of American's conflict with Saddam was made to disappear overnight; solution to the conflict now seemed only a simple matter of reversal in policy.

Except that in this case the reversal-with its tiresome call for troop withdrawal, its implied acknowledgement of imperialist aggression against an innocent Saddam, and its disregard of Kurdish and Shiite suffering under the many years of Ba’thist tyranny-wasn’t exactly the type of change Obama was preaching: It was a return to an old, old policy.

In fact, what Obama was telling the peoples of Iraq- and in particular the peoples of Kurdistan- was not the anti-colonialist message his supporters made it out to be: far from it, it was a message that basically said: If I could reverse the situation in Iraq to the way it was before March 2003, I would; Saddam was not our enemy; he meant America no harm.

Any wonder then that during his long overdue visit to Iraq Obama acted much like the much-pleased-with-himself colonial officer of a bygone era visiting an outpost just because he can! It wasn't a simple oversight or lack of time that Obama chose to snub Kurdistan. There was, actually, an obvious message in it: With a nod to Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Jordan, and other Arab countries, Obama in effect said: Take it from me, when it comes to America's policy in the Middle East, the Obama administration prefers doing things the old-fashioned way, that's, giving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the center stage, reassuring the governments in the region that stability, not change, would be America's goal, and further reassuring these governments that the Kurds would in no way be a factor in the new policy.

http://kurdistanobserver.servehttp.com/July-2008/29-7-08-op-ed-sabah-obama-you-dont-count.html

[SunkenCiv]

thanks AdmSmith!

In fact, what Obama was telling the peoples of Iraq- and in particular the peoples of Kurdistan- was not the anti-colonialist message his supporters made it out to be: far from it, it was a message that basically said: If I could reverse the situation in Iraq to the way it was before March 2003, I would; Saddam was not our enemy; he meant America no harm. Any wonder then that during his long overdue visit to Iraq Obama acted much like the much-pleased-with-himself colonial officer of a bygone era visiting an outpost just because he can! It wasn't a simple oversight or lack of time that Obama chose to snub Kurdistan. There was, actually, an obvious message in it: With a nod to Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Jordan, and other Arab countries, Obama in effect said: Take it from me, when it comes to America's policy in the Middle East, the Obama administration prefers doing things the old-fashioned way, that's, giving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the center stage, reassuring the governments in the region that stability, not change, would be America's goal, and further reassuring these governments that the Kurds would in no way be a factor in the new policy.