This is really amazing. I get the feeling that Obama is one of those guys who sees it as a sign of weakness to ever admit he’s wrong.
In an interview today with ABC, after speaking with General Petraeus, Obama credited the members of the Sunni Awakening, and Shia fighters with the success of the surge. GOP.Com reports:
Obama Told ABC’s Terry Moran That, Despite The Progress That Has Occurred In Iraq, He Would Not Have Supported The Surge. Moran: “‘[T]he surge of U.S. troops, combined with ordinary Iraqis’ rejection of both al Qaeda and Shiite extremists have transformed the country. Attacks are down more than 80% nationwide. U.S. combat casualties have plummeted, five this month so far, compared with 78 last July, and Baghdad has a pulse again.’ If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you — would you support the surge?” Obama: “No, because — keep in mind that -” Moran: “You wouldn’t?” Obama: “Well, no, keep — these kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult . Hindsight is 20/20. I think what I am absolutely convinced of is that at that time, we had to change the political debate, because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with.” Moran: “And so, when pressed, Barack Obama says he still would have opposed the surge.”
Did Obama even understand the question? Marc Ambinder Reports:
Obama said that he “did not anticipate, and I think that this is a fair characterization, the convergence of not only the surge but the Sunni awakening in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had had enough with Al Qaeda, in the Shii’a community the militias standing down to some degrees. So what you had is a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, I think that my assessment would have been correct.”
Soooo, knowing what he knows now…that the Sunni Awakening, and the Shii’a militias standing down would coincide with the “terrific work of our troops”, (aka US troops kicking al Qaeda’s ass)… he still wouldn’t support the surge??????????????? Even knowing that the horrific violence would probably have skyrocketed without enough of our troops to fight the bad guys and protect the Iraqi people?
HE’D STILL NOT SUPPORT THE SURGE.
In other words…the troops played no role what-so-ever in the routing of al Qaeda, the Sunni Awakening, and the overall reduction of violence that has lead to our almost certain victory in Iraq. They were pretty much just targets for our enemies.
Wow. GAME OVER, MAN! How anyone (with a working brain) will be able to take this man seriously after this, I just don’t know,
I mean, does this make sense to anybody? Hindsight is not that difficult, unless your arrogance prevents you from ever admitting when you’re wrong.
Much more at Gateway Pundit.
Some think that Obama’s “no” answer to Terry Moran’s question was a good political move. (see comments). I strongly disagree. Here’s a great piece in Commentary by Peter Wehner who agrees with me:
That Obama opposed the surge is bad enough — but that opposition was not itself irresponsible or unforgiveable. It was understandable, if in retrospect quite wrong, to believe that Iraq, caught in an apparent death spiral in the latter half of 2006, was unsalvageable. Critics of the surge argued that we were sending American troops to die in a lost cause.
It turned out that Iraq was redeemable and that the President’s strategy, brilliantly executed by General Petraeus and the American military, worked faster and better than anyone thought possible. To say that he would oppose a military plan that one day may well rank as among the best in our history is stunning. Whatever would motivate Obama to say what he did — political cowardice, willful denial, astonishing blindness to the facts, or the mindset of an ideologue — it ought to cause Americans to rethink, in the most fundamental way, whether Obama is responsible enough to be President.
I suppose it’s also now reasonable to ask Obama if he would, in hindsight, oppose the Normandy invasion. His judgment is that open to question.
He also thinks that McCain should use Obama’s “No” answer:
This must surely rank as among the most misinformed, ideological, and reckless statements by a presidential candidate in modern times. The McCain campaign should do everything they can to make Obama pay a high price for it. That one word answer, “No,” should be advertised in bright neon lights. It should become Exhibit A that Obama not only doesn’t have the “judgment to lead;” he has now supplied us with evidence that few people possess judgment as flawed as his.
…..Annnnnd McCain goes there:
“I would rather lose an election than lose a war. My opponent would rather lose a war than a political campaign.”
More on Obama and the surge from Mark Hemingway at The Corner.
Now he’s gone and told an incredulous Katie Couric that the money we spent in Iraq to fund the troop surge would have been better spent in Afghanistan. That’s why he would still oppose the troop surge, today.
In Obama’s opinion, all of the soldiers’ lives that have been lost in Iraq have been wasted.
From ThreatsWatch via Dave In Texas:
Presidential Candidate Obama’s statements in and about Iraq in the past 24 hours have been nothing less than shameless and disgraceful. While we strive to avoid political discussion at ThreatsWatch, criticism of his words transcends rank political partisanship if for no other reason than his claims are simply and flatly untrue, made in a war zone, during a time of war and while running to become the Commander in Chief of US Military Forces. This simply cannot stand unchallenged.
Not only does Senator Obama apparently think the Anbar Awakening and the Shi’a militia stand-downs that have occurred are somehow separate developments from the surge, which is a remarkable feat of logic in and of itself, but he is implying that they are part and parcel indigenous to what his ‘plan’ for ‘political progress’ would have afforded.
Continue reading at ThreatsWatch.