Feces bomb Throwing Democrap Protester wrote:
>
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080724/edit24.art.htm?loc=interstitialskip
>
>
>
> Why can't Obama admit the obvious? The surge worked
>
> Obama was right about war, wrong about surge; McCain vice versa.
>
> In January 2007, America's adventure in Iraq seemed like a chaotic
failure.
> The country was riven with sectarian violence, and al-Qaeda in Iraq had
> gained a foothold in western Anbar province. Attacks on U.S. troops were
> running well over 1,000 a week, and Iraqi civilians were dying at a rate
of
> more than 3,000 a month.
>
> In that context, President Bush's announcement that month that he
planned to
> "surge" more than 20,000 extra U.S. troops into Iraq felt to many
critics,
> including Sen. Barack Obama, like doubling down on failure. A year and a
> half later, though, violence is down dramatically and there's a cautious
> hope that both the U.S. and Iraq could achieve an outcome once seemed
out of
> reach.
>
> The surge didn't do all of that; a cease-fire by ****ite militias and the
> switch by Sunni insurgents from attacking Americans to fighting al-Qaeda
> helped enormously. But the extra U.S. troops, brilliantly deployed by
Gen.
> David Petraeus, have made a huge difference in calming the chaos. In
doing
> so, it also contributed to the other developments.
>
> Why then can't Obama bring himself to acknowledge the surge worked
better
> than he and other skeptics, including this page, thought it would? What
does
> that stubbornness say about the kind of president he'd be?
>
> In recent comments, the Democratic presidential candidate has grudgingly
> conceded that the troops helped lessen the violence, but he has insisted
> that the surge was a dubious policy because it allowed the situation in
> Afghanistan to deteriorate and failed to produce political breakthroughs
in
> Iraq. Even knowing the outcome, he told CBS News Tuesday, he still
wouldn't
> have sup****ted the idea.
>
> That's hard to fathom. Even if you believe that the invasion of Iraq was
a
> grievous error - and it was - the U.S. should still make every effort to
> leave behind a stable situation. Obama seems stuck in the first part of
that
> thought process, repeatedly proclaiming that he was right to oppose the
war
> and disparaging worthwhile efforts to fix the mess it created. Hence,
his
> dismissal of the surge as "a tactical victory imposed upon a huge
strategic
> blunder."
>
> The great irony, of course, is that the success of the surge has made
> Obama's plan to withdraw combat troops in 16 months far more plausible
than
> when he proposed it. Another irony is that while Obama downplays the
> effectiveness of the surge in Iraq, he is urging a similar tactic now in
> Afghanistan.
>
> As for the surge not producing sufficient political reconciliation in
Iraq,
> it's true that efforts to integrate Sunnis into a ****ite-dominated
political
> culture are only inching forward. But reconciliation takes many forms,
and
> ****ite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's military attacks against rogue
> ****ite militias in Basra and Baghdad's Sadr City were a hugely im****tant
> signal to Sunnis.
>
> Perhaps it's too much to ask that Obama risk being taunted by headlines
such
> as "Obama says Bush was right." But for the nation to move forward on
its
> single most vexing debate, it would help if the next president could
admit
> the obvious - whether that's Republican John McCain conceding that it
was a
> terrible blunder to invade Iraq in the first place, or Obama
acknowledging
> that the surge has worked better than he expected.
>
> Americans don't expect their president to be right all the time. They do
> expect him to change course when he's proved wrong.
>
> Page 10A
>
> E-mail | Save | Print
Let's see the country of Iraq is in shambles, the water and
electricity systems are shot, the doctors have left the nation, the
hospitals are not able to operate with worth a ****, women are not
safe on the streets, sectarianism,that never existed before the US
invasion,colors every decision. Close to one million civilians have
been killed. Who is there left to kill?
Someone made a good point the other day...when the Bu****es say how
Bush has prevented any deathse of Americans by terrorists. He leaves
out the 4,000+ Americans killed due to his LIE. Obama did not vote for
BUSH'S LIE and felt no obligation to keep pouring more money and lives
to the exact same LIE. Yeah and when Condi and the other Bu****es
travel to and from Iraq...it is still with great fear, and well behind
that Green Zone.
|
