Jul 22 2008

The Obidiot Speaks On Iraq, Lies To America, Loses Election

Published by at 7:41 am under 2008 Elections,All General Discussions,Iraq

Major Update: It’s official, Obama still opposes victory in Iraq, he still wants defeat.  In an interview with ABC News he restated his opposition to the key element that brought defeat to al-Qaeda:

After meeting with top U.S. military commanders and members of the Iraqi government, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said Monday his opposition to the surge and support for a firm timetable for the withdrawal of troops hasn’t changed.

The Surge supported the Awakening and defeated al-Qaeda. To STILL oppose it after all that is to oppose the defeat of al-Qaeda, the end result. To oppose the defeat of al-Qaeda is to support victory for al-Qaeda. Whose Commander-in-Chief is Obama planning to become, America’s or al-Qaeda’s?  

Gateway Pundit has more, as does Powerline and Allah Pundit– end update

It is no wonder Obama has terrible poll numbers when Americans are asked if he is ready to be Commander-in-Chief – he is not ready and they know it. When the subject turns to national security or war, the guy says things one would think only a 6th grader would mutter.

This became glaringly obvious yesterday when Obama tried to straddle the good news of victory in Iraq without admitting he was dead wrong on The Surge:

Obama met Maliki and President Jalal Talabani in Baghdad on Monday.
Maliki briefed Obama on recent progress in achieving security and stability, an Iraqi government statement said.

“I congratulate you (Maliki) on the achievements of your government … I am supportive and committed to preserving the gains the Iraqi government achieved under your leadership,” the statement in Arabic quoted Obama as saying.

As his visit sparked fresh debate in the US presidential race, Obama appeared to concede some ground on the surge, which he opposed and of which McCain was a vocal champion.
Obama told ABC News he “did not anticipate … the convergence of not only the surge but the Sunni Awakening in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had had enough with Al-Qaeda, in the Shiia community the militias standing down to some degrees.

“So what you had is a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops.”

Emphasis mine. Please tell me this man is not that dumb! The Surge was based on a smaller effort pioneered in Anbar Province. Anbar was home to the al-Qaeda forces and hosted the capitol city of their modern caliphate, Ramadi. And it was here that al-Qaeda made its Sunni enemies. The Surge was a response to the Awakening, not an accidental coincidence. And if Sen Barrack Obidiot was paying attention back in 2007 (instead of planning his run for the Presidency) he would have seen all the news stories about how conditions on the ground called for The Surge. I first learned of the concept of Surge and Suppress from the news out of Anbar from the fall of 2006.

Here is what was being debated from January – March 2007 about The Surge. At the end of January 2007 I posted on the Surge plan and the Awakening:

Operation surge is definitely more active than even I suspected. It seems today more militants were confronted and sent on their way to Allah as major fighting broke out near Baghdad. I would say the Iraqis look pretty serious and are beginning to work up to their role defending their country. This battle is the second such large scale operation in so many weeks. I hope we see more of this swamp draining. It will have an effect. One cannot help but ponder the view of al Qaeda right now. They must be wondering where are the Democrats and their promise of surrender. Al Qaeda should have realized the Dems penchant for surrender includes backing down on their promises.

This was followed by a year of Congressional votes trying to get Bush to Surrender Iraq to al-Qaeda. And we are all damn happy he ignored their dangerously ignorant advice. In February of 2007 Senator Lieberman was adamant about fighting the effort by Obama and other liberals to turn tale in Iraq, so I sincerely doubt Obama missed the point that the Awakening was happening before the Surge was enacted, and the Surge was an effort to take advantage of the Awakening:

If we stopped the legislative maneuvering and looked to Baghdad, we would see what the new security strategy actually entails and how dramatically it differs from previous efforts. For the first time in the Iraqi capital, the focus of the U.S. military is not just training indigenous forces or chasing down insurgents, but ensuring basic security–meaning an end, at last, to the large-scale sectarian slaughter and ethnic cleansing that has paralyzed Iraq for the past year.

Tamping down this violence is more than a moral imperative. Al Qaeda’s stated strategy in Iraq has been to provoke a Sunni-Shiite civil war, precisely because they recognize that it is their best chance to radicalize the country’s politics, derail any hope of democracy in the Middle East, and drive the U.S. to despair and retreat. It also takes advantage of what has been the single greatest American weakness in Iraq: the absence of sufficient troops to protect ordinary Iraqis from violence and terrorism.

I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully about what to do next. Instead of undermining Gen. Petraeus before he has been in Iraq for even a month, let us give him and his troops the time and support they need to succeed.

Clearly any Obidiot can see that the Awakening was spreading at this time, and the surge was still being formulated. Finally, in March 2007 I posted on this letter from a soldier asking the Democrat Congress to not give up, to not surrender, to stop giving hope to our enemies:

Do you know how much you embolden the insurgency here in Iraq? YOU ARE JEOPARDIZING THE LIVES OF US SERVICEMEN AND WOMEN WITH YOUR ACTIONS.
You and your fellow Democrats are causing the Al Qaeda supported insurgency to use more catastrophic attacks against us and Iraqi forces. You will see more SVBIED’s with chlorine gas, more VBIED’s against civilians and security forces every time you and other Democrats open your mouths.

Sunni Moslems here are coming to our side and joining forces with the government to defeat Al Qaeda(AQI) here in Iraq, but they need our help and they need us to stay. I have spent the last 7 months (3rd tour) in Iraq. I have watched Iraqi citizens pick up weapons and form militias in areas to join forces with Iraqi police/Army.

I must have 40 posts just like this over those first three months of the debacle that has been the Democrat Congress. Is Obama now claiming he missed all this? How could you miss The Awakening Senator????

John Hindraker over at Powerline recently noted what Obama thought of the Surge back then, and it is hard to reconcile these statements with his idiotic claim from Baghdad yesterday:

Actually, however, Obama opposed the surge not because of those “factors” but because he thought it would fail. He said, on January 10, 2007, on MSNBC:

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.

On January 14, 2007, on Face the Nation, he said:

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.

Obama just lied to America when he said he did not expect the Awakening to happen when he opposed the Surge. Review his lie one more time “Obama told ABC News he “did not anticipate … the convergence of not only the surge but the Sunni Awakening“. There is no way Obama was ignorant of the Surge and the fact Iraqis were turning on al-Qaeda. He knew – we ALL knew. But unlike President George Bush and General Petraeus, the Obidiot and his democrat friends had no clue what it meant.

Obama had the potential for success staring him right in the face – hell, Lieberman was standing in the well of the Senate explaining it to him – and he missed it.

Obama did two things yesterday. He showed he is not capable of being Commander-in-Chief because he totally misjudged the Iraq situation and our chances to win and avoid decades of violence in the Middle East that a loss would have wrought. And he proved he is not fit to be President of the United States when he lied to us about his horrible decisions regarding Iraq. A liar and a fool. America deserves better, and thankfully we have a much superior alternative choice.

I believe Obama finally stuck his foot in his mouth so deep he smothered his opportunity to be President for good.

20 responses so far

20 Responses to “The Obidiot Speaks On Iraq, Lies To America, Loses Election”

  1. […] ‘unaware’ – seems to be today’s theme (see my previous post on The Clueless […]

  2. dave m says:

    He’s not dumb.
    The reason you can’t admit to understanding what Hussein is up to
    is because you will not admit that Hussein is a muslim hiding in

    http://errortheory.blogspot.com did an excellent article on the
    evidence. (AE Rawls)

    Of course Hussein wants Al-Kyder to win. He is not Al-Kyder himself,
    but he belongs to the ummah, and he wishes them to win.

    America is the strongest adversary and Hussein will begin to dismantle
    that strength by stealth. Hussein will sign up to the Law of the Sea treaty,
    making it impossible for our Navy to operate. Hussein will sign up to
    Son of Kyoto, bankrupting our economy. Hussein will sign up to membership
    in the International Criminal Court at the Hague, meaning any President or
    military officer who defends us in the future may be tried for “war crimes”.
    And finally, the UN directive on Disarming Civilian Populations. Hussein
    will want that too. Problem, the Supreme Court guaranteed our
    individual right to bear arms. BUT THAT DECISION WAS ONLY

  3. […] of course, Obama would still prefer we not have succeeded since he still prefers we did not execute The Surge – […]

  4. MerlinOS2 says:

    The other piece of the puzzle that many forget is the Awakening , which was started before the surge troops began arriving was due to massive groundwork by the Marines on the scene to convince the sheiks of it’s value.

    Also another important issue was that the training of local forces had reached the size that by combining with our forces we could clear and hold and not just play whack a mole.

  5. pjo says:

    Obama is not stupid, typical Democrat yes, I think Obama is playing real cute. I was watching Hannity and Colmes last night and Colmes laid out the strategy. First of all, Colmes is making the claim that the White House is following Obama’s lead on all of his suggested items to determine when to withdrawl. Next they will claim that his proposed timetable is concrete and can be achieved versus Mc Cain’s which is vague and based on ‘conditions’ and he cannot guarantee for certain when and how many. This will fit nicely into the lede of Mc Cain’s 100 Year War. Obama will continue to work on our impatience and weariness of this War, in addition Obama will continue to hammer away at the cost of this War and how it is preventing us from using our Treasury to help us get out of this bad economy. Does he care about winning or losing, I don’t think so, it is part of his equation to gain the Presidency.

  6. Boghie says:

    LightBringer only recently Awakened!!!

    Nothing before Light matters…

    Darkness before Light…

    LightBringer sayeth, I bringeth them Home.

    And, it was good.

  7. hey norm says:

    the 18 month long 20% troop escalation that has left us with more boots in country than before it began was only made necessary by the collosal blunder of attacking and occupying iraq in the first place. aqi did not exist before our invasion. the problem of aqi was created by civilian leadership. so the 20% troop escalation, with all the associated deaths and financial burdens, is a direct result of the blunders of civilian leadership. now y’all seem to think this is the biggest issue before us. it’s not. but what is a big issue is the judgment that got us into iraq, a country that posed no threat, in the first place. now i know you have all sorts of craven rationalizations and semantic arguments to defend the attack and occupation of a country that posed no threat…i’ve seen them all. and that is where good judgment comes in to play…knowing the difference between a rationalization and the truth.

  8. AJStrata says:

    yeah, yeah, yeah norm. And Saddam Hussein never worked with AQ’s Zawahiri …

    you turned brain off years ago dude.

  9. AJStrata says:


    The problem with that strategy is that Americans are that dumb, and they get really irritated when someone like The Clueless One treats them as if they are that dumb.

    Backlash coming.

  10. hey norm says:

    zawahiri? he has also been linked to iran and saudi arabia and russia. he was in malaysia, taiwan, singapore, hong kong, and egypt. like i said…rationalizations and semantic arguments. i know you are scared sh**less by these guys…and personally invested in seeing something you imagine as victory…although like mccains nytimes op-ed you can’t describe it. but maybe you should turn on the part of your brain that can see globally and not just a tactic focused on a civil war in iraq.

  11. pjo says:

    Agreed, Americans are not that dumb but a snow job is an easier pill to swallow for Obama and Company than to admit that they were flat out wrong. In particular, when you see how the press is twisting Malki’s words about the US leaving Iraq. Because once they admit that were wrong, they would be on the defensive for the rest of the campaign because there are enough other bonehead things that they are insisting on going forward with (energy and taxes), that they know that they are very vulnerable on and will either have flip again or seem to be out-of-touch on those areas. Also, Obama’s left wingers already have one foot pointing to the exit door with FISA and other flip-flops that he has done, he needs to stand firm on the one last thing that most of the lefities really care about.

  12. Boghie says:

    Hey Norm,

    Regardless of where al Qaeda’s fighters were in 1999, where have we found most of them in this, the current, millennium?

    They are streaming back to NW Pakistan now. So, soon enough, these slugs will return to where you would have been watching them for the past five years.

    When the turds flow downhill to some slum in Somalia will you still seek them in Afghanistan?

    Fight them where you can find them.

    If they show up in Afghanistan, kill them there.

    If they show up in Iraq, kill them there.

    If they show up in Pakistan, kill them there.

    If they show up in Somalia, kill them there.

    If they show up in California, kill them there.

    Follow al-Qaeda (and for that matter the other Turd Farms of Hezbollah and Hamas) like the Romans followed Hannibal. Soon enough these turds will face the same music Hannibal faced – maybe even in the same locale. Will they choose to go out like Hannibal?

    And, yes, we can now start drawing down troops in Iraq.

    We Won.

    But, guess what, we will have troops in Iraq for decades to come. Why station our military in Munich when they are needed somewhere else?

  13. hey norm says:

    boghie…um…they are not “streaming back to nw pakistan now”…they have been there building in strength and establishing training camps for years. in the meantime far right fringe sites like this have been posting endlessly about the success of a tactic meant to quell a civil war that we started in iraq. go figure.

  14. Mark_for_Senate says:

    Judging by the 2004 election, the Dem’s only need 4,000,000 more clueless morons to win the WH. Wait! Seeing ‘hey norm’s posts, now they only need 3,999,999! Uh Oh, however; I still have faith in a ‘more informed’ electorate, and despite the gross spin of the drive by media, I see a 40 to 47 state landslide victory for McCain. Even though I particularily don’t like him, he really is the only choice we have and the majority of working Americans know this.

  15. Toes192 says:

    Aj…/// I think your posts are generally excellent. However, I object to using terms describing Sen. Obama as “The Obidiot.” While this is cutsey and perhaps gets attention, I think it devalues your opinions and presents you as perhaps a biased unserious columnist. I am 70 so perhaps civility has just passed me by.

  16. AJStrata says:


    The man LIED. There is no civility required when the man lies to your face.

    Yes, it is unsettling – it was meant to be. Being lied to is much more insulting that giving him a fun name.


  17. conman says:


    Once again your partisan lens is blurring your ability to see the political significance of the unfolding events regarding Iraq and Afghanistan. Ironically, the success of the surge produced a political opportunity for Obama that you can’t see because you hate him and the Democrats so much.

    When the surge was initially producing results, it presented a major problem for Obama because he had to explain why he wanted to withdraw our troops when the surge appeared to be producing results. It opened him up to the argument that it would be dangerous to elect him because it would lead to failure in Iraq.

    The success of the surge has shifted this issue significantly. Now that Bush and the GOP are claiming the surge is victorious, they can’t explain why we shouldn’t be withdrawing our troops. The Iraqi government is now pushing for a timetable for withdrawal and indicated a tacit endorsement of Obama’s 16-month timeline. Al Maliki has now confirmed three times that he meant what he said on the 2010 withdrawal date, so still arguing that he was misquoted or mistranslated is silly. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/latest-clarification-al-m_n_114051.html. The US military leaders will be recommending the withdrawal of troops from Iraq shortly and the shift of military resources to Afghanistan. The US military is now saying we need to focus on Afghanistan to address the rising threat of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in that region. The funny part is that I’m sure Bush and McCain thought the withdrawal of troops shortly before the election would help McCain, but it may well end up hurting his cause.

    Given these events, the military strategy in this region is looking more and more like what Obama has been advocating for some time – withdraw from Iraq and shift our focus to Afghanistan. The fear of failing in Iraq if we withdraw troops is no longer a key issue because everyone seems to be agreeing that Iraq is now stable enough to begin withdrawing troops. The GOP fear card that electing Obama will led to failure in Iraq is becoming weaker and stale.

    The only thing McCain and the GOP can now harp on his Obama’s bad judgment in assuming the Surge would not work. While that is a legitimate point, it is undercut by the fact that Obama can continue to argue that the decision to invade Iraq before we finished the job in Afghanistan and the disasterous initial post-occupation plan was bad judgment. While you may think the invasion was justified and are willing to overlook the lack of post-occupation planning and 2.5 years to correct it, the vast majority of the country does not agree. A debate over who exercised worse judgment on Iraq since 2003 is a much better position form Obama than explaining why we should abandon a strategy that appears to be producing results.

    One thing is certain. If McCain loses his decided advantage on Iraq, this election is over. Obama is killing him on domestic issues and McCain’s only hope is to convince everyone that Obama would be a dnager to our country. If he loses that edge and Iraq becomes an increasingly less important issue, he has nothing left to focus his campaign on.

  18. Boghie says:


    We should have military assets where military assets make sense.

    If Iraq accepts a military and/or commercial treaty with us that includes basing military assets than I am all for it. And, that will happen. It is currently in discussion.

    Hey Norm,

    The Taliban was ‘active’ in Afghanistan and Pakistan – not al Qaeda. al Qaeda’s leadership is probably holed up in NW Pakistan, but we can’t even be sure of that. However, I’ll give you that. It is most probable that whatever remains of al Qaeda’s leadership can be found squatting in some cave in NW Pakistan.

    Engram from BackTalk would like to hear of all your examples of al Qaeda attacks in Afghanistan over the past five years. Feel free to provide such examples.

    Richard Fernanez of the ‘Belmont Club’ connects why the remnants of al Qaeda are being ‘transferred’ to Pakistan now that they have been whipped in Iraq. Basically, the Middle East is the center of gravity for al Qaeda – not some landlocked and poor region that they were militarily purged from a number of years ago. Regardless, they have to go somewhere, eh. Where else.

    So, let us now plus up Afghanistan and ‘encourage’ Pakistan to fight the slime in FATA. If Pakistan cannot be ‘encouraged’ let us use other tactics to push the turds downhill to where the Pakistanis will have to deal with their wayward children.

  19. VinceP1974 says:

    I love when Leftist idiots claim other people are blinded by “partisan lens”.. that defines their entire worldview.

  20. VinceP1974 says:

    Boghie: They have no idea that AQ and Taliban are two seperate beasts.