More On Obama’s Iraq Surge Flip Flop
At some point, Democrats decided that facts didn’t matter anymore in Iraq. And they nominated just the man to reflect the party’s new anti-factual consensus on the war, a Barack Obama who has fixedly ignored changing conditions on the ground. . . .
Obama spokesmen now say everyone knew that President Bush’s troop surge would create more security. This is blatantly false. Obama said in early 2007 that nothing in the surge plan would “make a significant dent in the sectarian violence,” and the new strategy would “not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly.” He referred to the surge derisively as “baby-sit(ting) a civil war.”
Now that the civil war has all but ended, he wants to claim retroactive clairvoyance. In a New York Times op-ed laying out his position, Obama credits the heroism of our troops and new tactics with bringing down the violence.
Obama desperate wants to appear to know what he’s talking about on Iraq. The problem is that he doesn’t, and all his past statements about the war that have turned out to be wrong (statements he and his campaign are now actively trying to sweep under the rug) prove it.
Proof
DINO
The Whistler
realitybasedbob
Rezistik
sc
pparets
