Say Anything Blog

The thing I object to is Mccain taking rightly credit for the surge! He may claim credit for opposing the military strategy at the time and for pushing for “more troops” being delpoyed; but absent a battle plan more troops was meaningless. Absent any authority, he could not demand any changes at all. Not being in the Administration he had no role to play in developing the “Surge” strategy. There was only one military Commander that brought military planners together to develop and implement the plan and there was only one Commander-In-Chief to approve the plan and only then did Congress have a role and that was wholly financial.

I agree Obama is an idiot and he was against the surge, McCain was always for more troops and would be the far better CIC for the next four years; but McCain tries to take far more credit for the victory of the Surge than is his rightful due IMO.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

I think the effect of The Surge is overblown.

Too little credit is given to our armed forces when they were doing the heavy lifting defeating the insurgency when things didn’t look so rosy.

McCracken: Sometimes, even in war, appearances can prove to be of greater value than action, in the sense of perceptions. I don’t disagree that we were slogging it out and winning anyway!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

We were winning all along, regardless of what the press reported, and we were never in danger of losing.

Only Obama came up with the only possible strategy for defeat - cut and run.

Whether McCain took credit for the Surge or putting the Kibosh on the Kaiser, what did the NYT have to fear in putting this op-ed in the Paper of (broken) Record?

Trolls. It’s what’s for breakfast!
And then I eat their lunch.

Proof,

Answer: The truth.

We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality — we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 1/14/07)

“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.” (MSNBC’s “Response To The President’s Speech On Iraq,” 1/10/07)

“[E]ven those who are supporting — but here’s the thing, Larry — even those who support the escalation have acknowledged that 20,000, 30,000, even 40,000 more troops placed temporarily in places like Baghdad are not going to make a long-term difference.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 3/19/07)

“My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.” (NBC’s “The Today Show,” 7/18/07)
“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama told O’Reilly in an interview taped Thursday in York, PA. “It’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.” (09/04/2008)

Senator Barack Obama

“My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.” (Obama on NBC’s “The Today Show,” 7/18/07)

In this quote Barack attempts to declare the surge a failure at its beginning, almost to the day!

We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality — we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 1/14/07)

“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.” (MSNBC’s “Response To The President’s Speech On Iraq,” 1/10/07)

“[E]ven those who are supporting — but here’s the thing, Larry — even those who support the escalation have acknowledged that 20,000, 30,000, even 40,000 more troops placed temporarily in places like Baghdad are not going to make a long-term difference.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 3/19/07)

“My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.” (NBC’s “The Today Show,” 7/18/07)
“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama told O’Reilly in an interview taped Thursday in York, PA. “It’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.” (09/04/2008)

Senator Barack Obama

...but McCain tries to take far more credit for the victory of the Surge than is his rightful due IMO.

Neiman,

I respectfully disagree that this is McCain’s motive at all.  Rather, I think he is trying to point out, in vain it seems, just how WRONG Obama has been about Iraq from the beginning, and particularly now that Obama has admitted that he would vote against the surge again today.

McCain isn’t trying to take credit for the surge as much as he is trying to show that he supported it from the beginning… unlike Obama who takes credit for the success without acknowledging what a mess Iraq would be today if the generals and the White House had listened to him.

Incidentally, you are dead right that without the strategy in the surge the additional troops levels would have been meaningless.  Without General Petraeus’ counter-insurgency plans the extra “boots on the ground would have been only so many more targets.  It ain’t just what ya got… its how ya use it too!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Glad to see that McCain is (rightly) using a great weapon against Obama:  “roll tape.” In other words, “this is what he said then, this is what he’s saying now, do you trust this kind of guy in the White House"?"

Hopefully people catch on before it’s too late.

The New York Times was afraid to print The Truth.  They do not deserve the status of newspaper.  More like communist/liberal/democratic rag.

Communism is evil