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. kathie says:

    Obama’s bet is that Americans will care more about what government can do for them then “building schools, roads, medical clinics” in Iraq. For him it is not about our security, he is betting on our selfishness. Afghanistan is where al Queda is, not Iraq, being in Iraq makes less safe because it causes the Muslim world to hate us. We have to get back to the real War on Terror in Afghanistan. I would have never gone into Iraq, so I can leave when I want to.

  2. dave m says:

    Trouble is, he’s not qualified to be President.
    To be President, one has to be a natural born American citizen,
    and it is looking increasingly unlikely that Obama is that,

    Read it here:


  3. Dc says:

    I think you can leave that one behind.


  4. norm says:

    again with the delusions about victory and surrendering? “…al-qaeda is all but vanquished…” which is great when you consider they weren’t there until we created the opportunity for them to be there and “…the mahdi militia has surrendered completely…” which is part of a civil war that we allowed to happen. so your point boils down to; we need to stay in iraq forever because we f’ed it up. well i’m not sure that someone who supports the policies that f’ed this up in the first place is the one i would look to for advice on how to manage the situation going forward. shouldn’t you be posting about imaginary videotapes?

  5. Neo says:

    Let’s take this as a “glass half full” scenario.

    Bush’s and the American people’s luck has changed for the better.
    It’s good to know that our “bad luck” is behind us.

  6. kathie says:

    Norm..do you have your opinions on speed dial? You often repeat yourself adnauseam!

  7. norm says:

    a clarification; “…al queda is nearly vanquished…” and the democrats are “…poised to destroy all our efforts…” are specious opinions repeated here ad nauseum. that al queda in mesopotomia did not exist until we allowed it to exist and the mahdi militia was involved in a civil war we allowed to happen are facts.

  8. KauaiBoy says:

    Is it really “luck” or perhaps divine intervention on the side of righteousness. I remember a little “luck” turned the tide at Midway and the Battle of the Bulge. But far be it from me to offend the sensitivities of the atheists.

  9. robert verdi says:

    There are 4 months until the election, do not underestimate the ability of media elites to keep the narrative on a pro-obama bias for that period.

  10. kathie says:

    Norm, only Zarwahiri had a meeting with Saddham. Zarquari (sp) was in Iraq, but maybe they were discussing the weather, or maybe they were discussing the future weather.

  11. Neo says:

    Here comes the beginning of that pivot on Iraq ..

    Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday, in a major speech on patriotism, criticized MoveOn.org for referring to Gen. David Petraeus as General Betray Us last year.

    Next, we should expect him to say that … “while he opposed it from the beginning, we now have to deal with the situation as it exists.”

    After the “FISA” sellout, how long before the “netroots” are in full revolt ?

  12. Dorf77 says:

    …After the “FISA” sellout, how long before the “netroots” are in full revolt ? Ask Norm.

  13. norm says:

    or maybe they were getting medical treatment. craven rationalizations and semantics are not a justification for sending 4000+ troops to their death.
    al queda in mesopotamia was not formed until after we attacked and occupied iraq. look it up…although if you want facts i suggest other sites.

  14. breschau says:

    Wow – that’s a pretty impressive set of statements there:

    “Obama’s idiotic plans to surrender to al-Qaeda there”

    Al-Qaeda is in charge of Iraq now? Oh, you mean they would take over if we leave. So, even after an 18 month “surge”, the entire purpose of which was to create stability in the country, things are still so fragile that if we leave, they would be able to take over?

    Also, is there any set of circumstances under which we could withdraw, and not have it be a “surrender to Al Qaeda”? Or is your opinion truly that we have to stay in Iraq forever?

    “Their reputations and credibility are based on Iraq being an unmitigated disaster, not the success it is turning out to be.”

    “Success”?? Wait – you just stated that if we leave, we’re surrendering the whole damn country to al-Qaeda! How is that a “success”?

    How you can even think of this as a success, when the everyday levels of violence would be considered absolute chaos and mayhem anywhere outside of Zimbabwe and Darfur, is beyond me.

  15. kathie says:

    This country, our country, most of it’s elected officials, declared war on Iraq. Our voluntary military, those who choose to fight for their country, 4000 died in that endeavor. God bless them!

  16. Terrye says:

    I think that Obama will change with the circumstances if need me. After all, norm and his buddy breschau are perfect of examples of people who believe whatever he wants them to.

    I can remember years of the UN and the Clinton people talking about Saddam and his weapons. I can remember people like Bill Richardson and Richard Clarke from the Clinton administration talking about Saddam’s ties to AlQaida. And yet the Obama fan club acts as if none of that happened. Right down the memory hole.

    So if Obama needs to do a 180, they will let him get away with it. After all, truth is relative. Relative to what they need it to be that is.

    And AlQaida was in Iraq before the US went there and if we just abandoned the country they would not doubt attempt a comeback. They are parasites looking for a weak host.

    What I have noticed about the Obama people is their complete lack of respect for the Iraqi people or their government. They are more willing to suck up to the Iranians than they are to deal with the Iraqi government.

  17. Terrye says:


    That is not true. The levels of violence in Iraq are way down.

    As far as comparisons to Zimbabwe or Darfur, you could say the same things about the every day violence in Obama’s home town of Chicago. Besides, if we just turn tail and run it won’t get any better.

  18. breschau says:


    When was the last time someone set off a suicide bomb in Chicago?

  19. breschau says:

    “I can remember years of the UN and the Clinton people talking about Saddam and his weapons. I can remember people like Bill Richardson and Richard Clarke from the Clinton administration talking about Saddam’s ties to AlQaida.”

    Posts? Links? URLs? Where’s the proof, son?

    No? Sit down and let the adults discuss this, then.