Jun 30 2008

OMG, Liberal Media Realizes Obama Is Wrong On Iraq!

This New Yorker article on Iraq and Obama’s idiotic plans to surrender to al-Qaeda there, despite all our hard won successes, is just stunning. First, it recognizes the work that made the sea change in Iraq possible – though in typical liberal faction it credits ‘luck’ instead of determination to win, and the sacrifices made by American forces, Allied forces and Iraqis themselves:

At the start of 2007, no one in Baghdad would have predicted that blood-soaked neighborhoods would begin returning to life within a year. The improved conditions can be attributed, in increasing order of importance, to President Bush’s surge, the change in military strategy under General David Petraeus, the turning of Sunni tribes against Al Qaeda, the Sadr militia’s unilateral ceasefire, and the great historical luck that brought them all together at the same moment. With the level of violence down, the Iraqi government and Army have begun to show signs of functioning in less sectarian ways.

This admission by the SurrenderMedia is long in coming. The effort to continue the delusion that it was not the concerted efforts Americans and Iraqis that turned the tide, but instead some mystical karma, is comical and illustrates why the liberals are losing the debate on Iraq. A debate the liberal media swears they cannot lose to the GOP again. But aside from the ignorance on how we are were we are in Iraq, the reality on the ground is forcing the left to realize Obama’s surrender plans are now seriously and dangerously flawed:

The same pragmatism that prompted him last month to forgo public financing of his campaign will surely lead him, if he becomes President, to recalibrate his stance on Iraq. He doubtless realizes that his original plan, if implemented now, could revive the badly wounded Al Qaeda in Iraq, reënergize the Sunni insurgency, embolden Moqtada al-Sadr to recoup his militia’s recent losses to the Iraqi Army, and return the central government to a state of collapse.

Emphasis mine of course. However, I seriously doubt Obama does understand he is poised to destroy all our efforts in Iraq, that he is poised to throw away all those sacrifices in blood that brought Iraq out of the darkness of al-Qaeda’s nightmare ambitions. Right now we need to be praying for some luck that Obama’s demonstrable inability to understand Iraq over the last few years is not actaully reality, but some sophisticated political ploy that is working just fine for one and all! Now that is a leap of logic no sane person can make.

Obama has not shown a shred of insight and understanding on Iraq, and I doubt he can catch up on one brief trip there this summer. The fact is he and the liberal Surrendercrats are tied to their promises of doom in Iraq. Their reputations and credibility are based on Iraq being an unmitigated disaster, not the success it is turning out to be.

June will be coming in as one of the lowest months for violence against American forces – it is now tied for the 4th lowest month of the entire war, with all but one of the top three occurring this year alone. And June will be the lowest month for Iraqi casualties (security forces and civilians). al-Qaeda is all but vanquished and the Mahdi Militia has surrendered completely. And still Obama’s policies have not changed nor have his out of date claims on his website been corrected.

If the man cannot keep up on the key national security issue facing this country, what makes him believe he is qualified to be President? Iraq is one part of the big job of running this country, and Obama is failing to stay current on just that subject alone. He is clearly more concerned with votes than issues facing this country if he remains paralyzed to his far left pandering from over a year ago.

36 responses so far

36 Responses to “OMG, Liberal Media Realizes Obama Is Wrong On Iraq!”

  1. Dc says:

    I won’t even mention that there must be 50 youtube video of Bills and other democrats speeches declaring the same. Not to mention Bill Clinton unilateraly bombing Iraq or launch missles at will around the globe to defend US interests and security of the region. That’s without any UN prior approval or “ok”.

    You are aware that it was under Clinton admin that they passed the Iraqi Liberation Act and made the removal of Saddams’ regime the “offical” policy of the US towards Iraq?

  2. dave m says:

    read that snopes link,
    actually it just sealed my belief that Hussein is not entitled
    to be President because he cannot produce evidence of his
    birth (or won’t for some inexplicable reason)

    Now we may say who cares? Hussein is such an “enlightened being”
    that we all need to lift him and celebrate him and anything else,
    like legal eligibility is just “a distraction”.

    Maybe we should let Hussein win. He would be the last
    democrat president of the USA.

  3. Terrye says:


    The number of suicide bombers in Iraq is down about 90% in the last few months. Too bad the same can not be said for gang related homicides in Chicago.

    And if you need links and urls then you must have spent the 90’s either stoned or in grade school.

    There were the more than 17 UN resolutions on the subject, culminating in Resolution 1441. There were the indictments against AlQAida for the bombings in Africa in which Saddam’s government is cited as aiding the terrorists. There were the interviews with Bill Richardson in which he discussed the necessity of bombing as aspirin factory in the Sudan because they were producing chemical weapons. There were the TV news programs such as “Target America” aired on ABC in 1999 detailing the relationship between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden. There was the 2000 briefing of Zinni before Congress in which he stated America’s greatest threat was in Saddam. There was the Iraqi Liberation Act passed in 1998 in which the Clinton administration and the US Congress made the removal of Saddam from power to be our national policy.

    You know how to google, go knock yourself out and get a little information. However, I will say you really are a perfect example of why it is that Obama can completely change his policy and get away with it. You just pretend there is no past, but the past you create. Nice.

  4. AJStrata says:


    Either act like an adult or take a hike. Simply because you are unaware or ignorant of facts and events doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

    Today I have a low tolerance for insults.


  5. gwood says:

    It’s pretty obvious that our fifth-column within (represented by norm, Breschau) finds the news on Iraq to be quite painful.

    Of course al-Qaida wasn’t in Iraq before the US went in; but they obviously felt they had to come there, as Bush knew they would (fly-paper strategy, “rather fight ’em there than fight ’em over here”). They came, and they have been handed a humiliating defeat.

    Please tell us, guys (gals?) what points you score by pointing out the fact that they weren’t there before we went in to topple a potential ally of theirs?

    To me, it only validates the stated Bush strategy. He took his bat, he pointed it to RIGHT field, and he hit a home run.

    Babe Bush.

  6. scaulen says:

    Wow, I think a couple of our liberal friends are missing something about the war in Iraq. One of the other reasons we went in there was to make it a terrorist magnet. They had to go and fight us there. We were in their back yard, and if they didn’t step up and take us on their credibility with the Muslims backing them would have been shot. I saw it from day one of the invasion, this was going to be the battle we wanted. Instead of having to hunt them out of their caves in dozens of different countries, we could get them all to come to what became our home field. No worrying about getting permission for cross border attacks, or entering foreign air space, or sending in small units and trying to keep them supplied. We dangled a big piece of meat, they came out of their holes and got whacked down. It wasn’t easy, and was very bloody. But imagine all those operatives that got eliminated in Iraq freely roaming the world allowed to follow through on their plans against soft targets. We were playing chess, while the terrorists were playing checkers. Sometimes you liberals are so blind it really does scare me.

  7. Mark78 says:

    Funny they won’t admit THEY were wrong though…

  8. Mark78 says:

    al Qaeda WAS in Iraq pre invasion. They have admitted on their sites and in their documents. Saddam’s own men have also admitted it as well, not to mention our troops encountered them throughout the country during the initial invasion.

  9. Dorf77 says:

    scaulen It is amazing that the Flypaper theory which was bandied about a few years ago in conveniently forgotten by nearly everyone……. And of course it WORKED.

  10. Dc says:

    Using their logic, we created Nazism and the Vichy gov by invading Europe. Of course, there were places that didn’t have as many Germans in them until “we” got there. It’s called opening 2nd (or 3rd, or 4th) front. You do that to force the enemy to respond to what “you” are doing (offense) instead of sitting back waiting to respond to what they might do (defense). Sometimes you do both. That’s how you fight a “war”.

    Holding the line at all cost in the battle of the bulge, in yet another country, another place that didn’t attack us, was also a turning point as we look back today. What they try to do is to take everything out of context, judge only the cost and not what has turned there and/or how that plays into the larger picture, and then use “hindsight” in the middle of a war (or battle even) to judge the outcome that has yet to be written. Norm, and people like him, do not realize that in doing so, they are encouraging our enemies to keep fighting—nor do they care. That if they just keep fighting, we will give up. Or we will elect someone who will change course, or etc. What our enemies need to see…as norm continues too point out without realizing it…is that we are “determined” to continue to move this forward. We aren’t going to give up. We aren’t going to cut and run. We are going to adapt, learn, and continue to fight…until we succeed in establishing a free, functioning Iraq that is free of WMD, that is no longer a safe haven for some of the worlds most wanted/notorious terroists, that has a freely elected gov that is answerable to it’s people. And “that” Iraq…WILL be an ally to us in this war going forward and an ally for peace in the future to the rest of the world. They will be an ally because the enemy of them reaching that goal of peace/self rule, etc., is NOT the US gov nor our brave soliders—it’s the “same” enemy we are all fighting. And finally, that Iraq will no longer be a blight on the world, that requires constant monitoring and threats to keep it in check (that brought us “stability” and cheap gas at the cost of 26 million enslaved people and over 300,000 executions)—which it would seem if fine with most democrats if we could just return to “That’. But, of course we can’t. Nor can we undo 9/11 either.

    Our enemies didn’t choose to stay and face our wrath and fight in Afghanistan. They fled to fight another another day. And as long as Pakistan allows them free access in and out of the region, there will be continued skirmishes. But, it was Iraq that turned this tide in a larger sense of the war. It was Iraq that AlQueda chose to take their stand, to try and topple the emerging gov, assassinate leaders, to foment civil war…who went there to kill muslims and attack the gov. Because “they”..had become a bigger threat to them than “we” were. Thats where AlQueda and the like took their stand, and thats where we broke their back in every way. It was “their” Vietnam, not ours. That others took advantage of this time of instability for their own purposes (Iran/Sadr/MSM/etc) is part of it as well, and we owe all of them one. Even they are withdrawing at this point because what they are doing is seen more as attacks on the IRaqi people and gov than on the “US”.

    The most important thing we need to do now is to continue a macro-based strategic approach to this war. It’s not going to end with Iraq…although IRaq as well as afghanistan will continue to play supporting as well as more central roles. Not only as strategic allies, but in the world as partners in peace and trade instead of tyranny and bribes.

  11. […] Strata, OMG, Liberal Media Realizes Obama Is Wrong On Iraq!, The Strata-Sphere, June 30, […]

  12. Dc says:

    And if you’d like to see a good speech that outlines those concepts in principal…check out Obama’s recent speech opening—although I’m fairly certain by next week or so after he realizes what it means…he’ll have thrown it under the bus as well (constitution and all)

  13. Dc says:


    read that snopes link,
    actually it just sealed my belief that Hussein is not entitled
    to be President because he cannot produce evidence of his
    birth (or won’t for some inexplicable reason)

    Fine. I have some experience with graphic arts and if you desat the image (making it b/w), then invert it…and use curves to bring it out…you can “see” a partial outline of where the seal was. You can also clearly see the date…which is inverted just as it is on the reference example.

    There are pixel aberrations in a semi circle that could indicate an embossment from the opposite side. Is that “defenitive” proof? No.
    But, along wiht all the other things….like the fact that he’s been serving in US senate as well as various committees for a while now who would have had backround checks, etc., I doubt very seriously..you are ever going to see him withdraw because of lack of proof of citizen ship. More likely is….this is such a stupid tact….he just hasn’t even responded to it.

    I certainly would not go out on a limb to push this as I’m “certain” that the Obama camp can and (and would) produce a legit, embossed, birth certificate that would make everyone persuing this line look like an idiot. But,….be my guest.

  14. AJStrata says:


    I did the same thing and can back you up. I went to one of the sites going on about the certificate and different versions up. I debunked just about all of them on my own analysis:

    For anyone interested the certificate was released in Jun 2007 (you can read that much from the date stamp from the other side coming through on the Kos and BOH site versions of the document). This means it is not the original.

    The certificate is generated by a laser printer, as one would figure out from reading the code in the lower left corner.

    Kos actually had the cleanest digital version which showed the area for the seal and the signature on the back once you played with the color scheme as DC did.

    Someone (moniker Opendna) on the Kos site made a copy from BHO’s certificate and removed the names, etc leaving the date and place (Oahu). There are some laser printer dots on the document which show up in both the original and Opendna’s version, but all the items bleeding through from the back our gone – as if the original was printed out and then rescanned. Opendna’s version has much lower resolution lettering, suggesting this is the case.

    All in all, the certificate looks legit. I would also assume BHO had a see of lawyers looking at this years ago and with some serious legal arguments and precedents in their hands.

    I agree, at the moment this looks like nothing. But if someone wants to take him to court – fine. Waste of money and only looks like a cheap attack.

    Still not sure if I will find the time to post my analysis results.


  15. […] without any regard to what is happening on the ground. This reality has been explained to him by liberal news outlets in no uncertain terms – his current plans will be a disaster. In fact Obama was recently caught […]

  16. […] without any regard to what is happening on the ground. This reality has been explained to him by liberal news outlets in no uncertain terms – his current plans will be a disaster. In factObama was recently caught […]