Wednesday, August 27, 2008

If Obama's words mean nothing, what's left?

Since the only thing Obama supporters appear to hear are the words of their candidate Barrack Obama, here are his words on the incredibly important issue of last year's Iraq surge. How Obama followers will react to the clear contradictions in his words is predictable. But with nothing but words to justify their loyalty to him, it's not surprising that even Obama's words are ignored when they become inconvenient.

Obama on January 7th, 2007 defending his opposition to the surge:
"We can send 15 thousand more troops, 20 thousand more troops, 30 thousand more troops, I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately who believes that is going to make a substantial difference in the situation on the ground."

Obama to MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on Jan. 10, 2007: "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. I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. So I am going to actively oppose the president's proposal."

Obama on March 19th, 2007 to Larry King that the surge won't work:
"But here's the thing Larry, even those who support the escalation have acknowledged that 20 thousand, 30 thousand, or 40 thousand more troops placed temporarily in places like Baghdad are (not) going to make a long term difference."

Obama on Meet the Press on November 11th, 2007 following the party spin that the surge is failing:
"…not only had we not seen improvements, but we are actually witnessing a worsening of the situation there."

Obama on January 5th, 2008 beginning to rewrite history:
"Now I said at the time, when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform that we would see an improvement in the situation and we would see a reduction in the violence."

The following statement is a particularly troubling statement, given that Obama appears to admit that political posturing is more important than success in Iraq, or even the lives of thousands of people, both American and Iraqi.

Obama on Nightline on July 20th, 2008 asked, "if you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?" Obama's response:
"No, because, keep in mind… These kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. Hindsight is 20/20. But I think that, what I’m 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."

Obama to Brian Williams on July 24th 2008 stating that the surge was destined to have a positive impact:
"What I said at the time, even at the time of the debate in the surge was that when you put 30,000 American troops in of course its going to have an impact, there's no doubt about that."

Obama after his recent visit to Iraq:
"You see the activity taking place, the people in the shops, the traffic on the streets, clearly there’s been an enormous improvement."

If Barrack Obama was president in 2007, and his response to the deaths and mayhem in Iraq was to pull American forces out, what would be the situation today in Iraq? How many tens of thousands of Iraqis would be dead today? How much higher would the price of gasoline be? Would he now be preparing to send troops back to Iraq under greater threats as he promised last year.

Change we can believe in? This evolution and attempt to rewrite his own position is exactly why record, experience, and honesty is so vitally important for a Commander in Chief. And it also demonstrates a clear example of his inexperience and arrogance related to a critical foreign policy issue with several nations and millions of people at risk. In this instance, he was clearly on the wrong side of an otherwise very successful outcome. An outcome that his party has worked to undermine since 2003.

No comments: