Sandhusker
Well-known member
When will Barack Obama explicitly acknowledge progress in Iraq? The evidence is almost overwhelming. More than a few articles have been written documenting the success of the surge. Reports of drastic drops in violence can be heard from NPR all the way to Fox News. While it’s true that many of these reports carefully point out that the situation is still fragile, they all nonetheless point to measurable success as a result of the surge.
So, where is the Barack Obama of the primary season? Remember him? He’s the one who beat an entire field of notable Democrat luminaries, because he was able to energize the anti-war far left. He’s the one who once called for an immediate withdrawal, said the surge would never work, and ran on the premise of having opposed the war from the beginning.
Today, that Barack Obama is making a dash to the center. Still mostly silent about progress in Iraq, he nonetheless recently told reporters that he might “refine” his policy. Obama then had to defend himself only a few hours later, stating forcefully “I have not equivocated on that position” -- lest anyone should doubt.
Anyone surprised at this quick turnaround shouldn’t be. Obama has a long record of waffling, specifically about Iraq.
In an excellent piece by Peter Wehner titled “Obama’s War”, it’s clear that Obama has never been serious about Iraq, and has always put politics first in deciding where to stand. As the article accurately states, Obama’s ever shifting views demonstrate “a record of problematically ad-hoc judgments at best, calculatingly cynical judgments at worst. Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to stipulate that Barack Obama was right in 2002, what does this subsequent record say about his fitness to serve?”
Wehner thoroughly breaks down Obama’s long record of Iraq waffles since 2002, an embarrassing timeline that goes something like this:
Oct. 2002: Obama, then an Illinois state senator, gives an anti-war speech to an anti war gathering in Chicago.
Mar. 2003: Obama, seeing the success of the initial invasion and toppling of Saddam’s statue, thinks he may have been wrong for opposing the
war (documented in “Audacity of Hope”).
July 2004: Obama says, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.”
Sep. 2004: Obama says in an AP report that pulling out of Iraq would make things worse, and even says he might support sending more troops.
Nov. 2004: Obama goes on Charlie Rose and says “Once we go in, then we’re committed”.
Obama holds this view -- until he decides to run for President. By this time, public opinion of the war is very low, so accordingly…
Oct. 2006: Obama calls for a phased withdrawal, and is against sending more troops.
Jan. 2007: Obama says the surge won’t work.
May 2007: Obama votes against funding for combat operations, and says he wants the “troops out now!”
Jan 2008: Obama utters a ridiculous statement crediting early signs of success -- not to the US Military, Gen. Petraeus, or President Bush --
but to the results of the November 2006 US elections. Said Obama:
“Much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province, Sunni tribes, who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what?—the Americans may be leaving soon. And we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shiites. We should start negotiating now.”
Interesting judgment to say the least.
Obama has since said that he will reserve the right to do and say exactly the opposite of whatever he said about Iraq before, and anything in between, as long as all political bases are covered.
Remember, according to the article, Obama did say in 2004, that he “would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy that the President and military leaders believe will stabilize the country and eventually allow America to withdraw.”
At this point, would anyone be surprised if -- upon completion of his long overdue second trip to Iraq -- Obama tried to use that statement to claim that he actually supported the surge all along?
Would anyone be surprised if the mainstream media let him get away with it?
So, where is the Barack Obama of the primary season? Remember him? He’s the one who beat an entire field of notable Democrat luminaries, because he was able to energize the anti-war far left. He’s the one who once called for an immediate withdrawal, said the surge would never work, and ran on the premise of having opposed the war from the beginning.
Today, that Barack Obama is making a dash to the center. Still mostly silent about progress in Iraq, he nonetheless recently told reporters that he might “refine” his policy. Obama then had to defend himself only a few hours later, stating forcefully “I have not equivocated on that position” -- lest anyone should doubt.
Anyone surprised at this quick turnaround shouldn’t be. Obama has a long record of waffling, specifically about Iraq.
In an excellent piece by Peter Wehner titled “Obama’s War”, it’s clear that Obama has never been serious about Iraq, and has always put politics first in deciding where to stand. As the article accurately states, Obama’s ever shifting views demonstrate “a record of problematically ad-hoc judgments at best, calculatingly cynical judgments at worst. Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to stipulate that Barack Obama was right in 2002, what does this subsequent record say about his fitness to serve?”
Wehner thoroughly breaks down Obama’s long record of Iraq waffles since 2002, an embarrassing timeline that goes something like this:
Oct. 2002: Obama, then an Illinois state senator, gives an anti-war speech to an anti war gathering in Chicago.
Mar. 2003: Obama, seeing the success of the initial invasion and toppling of Saddam’s statue, thinks he may have been wrong for opposing the
war (documented in “Audacity of Hope”).
July 2004: Obama says, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.”
Sep. 2004: Obama says in an AP report that pulling out of Iraq would make things worse, and even says he might support sending more troops.
Nov. 2004: Obama goes on Charlie Rose and says “Once we go in, then we’re committed”.
Obama holds this view -- until he decides to run for President. By this time, public opinion of the war is very low, so accordingly…
Oct. 2006: Obama calls for a phased withdrawal, and is against sending more troops.
Jan. 2007: Obama says the surge won’t work.
May 2007: Obama votes against funding for combat operations, and says he wants the “troops out now!”
Jan 2008: Obama utters a ridiculous statement crediting early signs of success -- not to the US Military, Gen. Petraeus, or President Bush --
but to the results of the November 2006 US elections. Said Obama:
“Much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province, Sunni tribes, who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what?—the Americans may be leaving soon. And we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shiites. We should start negotiating now.”
Interesting judgment to say the least.
Obama has since said that he will reserve the right to do and say exactly the opposite of whatever he said about Iraq before, and anything in between, as long as all political bases are covered.
Remember, according to the article, Obama did say in 2004, that he “would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy that the President and military leaders believe will stabilize the country and eventually allow America to withdraw.”
At this point, would anyone be surprised if -- upon completion of his long overdue second trip to Iraq -- Obama tried to use that statement to claim that he actually supported the surge all along?
Would anyone be surprised if the mainstream media let him get away with it?