Obama's Revisionist Masterpiece: Iraq

Oh, where to begin...! Barack Obama has done a masterful job of changing positions without changing positions now that he's actually been to Iraq (the first time in three years, and only after stating his Iraq policy). He's swinging back and forth more often than a pendulum, so it's going to be tough to keep up. Still, here's a shot at the more blatant stuff.

Rush Limbaugh spent a considerable amount of time on this subject yesterday, including a press conference from Jordan, so I wanted to recap some of those quotes. Take a look:

Obama: With respect to the surge, you know, we don't know what would have happened if the plan that I put forward in January 2007 to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation to begin a phased withdrawal, what would have happened had we pursued that strategy. I am pleased that as a consequence of great effort by our troops -- but also as a consequence of a shift in allegiances among the Sunni tribal leaders as well as the decision of the Sadr militias to stand down -- that we've seen a quelling of the violence. Everywhere we went, one of the biggest concerns right now is the fact that you've got scores of unemployed Iraqi men -- uh, and women -- who are not getting the kind of opportunity that I think is going to be important.

This is breathtaking revisionism! Did you see what Obama said? He is saying that the cause of the success in Iraq was due to political progress and the Iraqi military stepping up! Now, if he were capable of speaking the truth, he would be forced to acknowledge that these were the very same things he and the rest of the Democrats have been whining about for years, saying these things weren't happening. Apparently, Obama just threw most of the leadership of his own party under the bus (it sure is crowded under there!). What it boils down to is that he simply refuses to give any credit to the U.S. military and Petraeus' surge strategy, which was the primary cause of the success we're now seeing in Iraq. Unbelievable!

Now, what about his judgment? Obama has been consistent in trumpeting his judgment to make up for his woeful lack of actual experience:

I don't have doubts about my ability to apply sound judgment to the major national security problems that we face. These are difficult questions, and, you know, I don't think that anybody believes they have the perfect formula for solving some of these very difficult foreign policy problems, but I feel very confident in my worldview and my ability to -- to shape a discussion that takes all arguments and facts into consideration and then come up with the best answer.

Limbaugh points out that this reveals his complete naivete and misunderstanding of our enemies. He continues to believe that the war against terrorism is based on a simple difference of ideas that can be worked out by sitting down and talking! He is completely out of touch on this.

Rush goes on a bit of a tear about the constant refusal to credit the military:

Since when, Senator Obama, did you and your party start giving a rat's rear end about the people of Iraq? Because to listen to you people over the course of many years, we should never have gone in there. We shoulda left them under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein with the rape rooms and the genocide, the mass murders, the poisonings. We shoulda never gone in there. Now all of a sudden you care about the Iraqi people? You cannot give the US military credit no matter what! You cannot give your own country credit. You just can't. You Democrats cannot do it. You have to credit Maliki. You have to credit these tribesmen, the Sunnis and the Sadr army for"standing down." Yeah, they got their political act together. Yeah! Cool! Right on! What do you think made that happen? The surge made that happen! The United States military made that happen.

He's right.

Now, what about the surge itself? A recent report in Der Spiegel suggested that Iraqi Prime Minister al Maliki met with Obama and agreed with his plan to withdraw troops within 16 months. Obama and the Left trumpeted this development as vindication of their constant mission to force surrender in Iraq. Unfortunately for them, the PM's office released a correction shortly thereafter, saying it was a translation error, and that Maliki wants American troops gone, but only in a measured way that would retain security in the country. Oops. Rick Moran at American Thinker puts it in perspective this way (excerpts):

It was two summers ago that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki visited Washington and addressed a joint session of Congress.

Except there were quite a few empty seats in the Chamber when the Prime Minister rose to speak. That's because Democrats were boycotting Maliki's historic appearance according to some, because he was an American "puppet" and not the head of an independent country.

Yesterday, Maliki told German news magazine Der Speigel that he supported Barack Obama's 16 month timetable for withdrawal of American troops. A corrected statement put out later by the PM's office delinked Maliki's statement from Obama's specific call for a timetable but his meaning was clear. Maliki said that those advocating a withdrawal where Americans come out "sooner rather than later" are being more "realistic."

Which is it? Is Maliki a puppet or is he independent? Obviously, when Maliki isn't doing what Democrats want he is a puppet. When his ideas reflect their thinking, he isn't.

While Maliki is clearly saying he's looking forward to the departure of American troops, you have to keep in mind that he is a politician. He's clearly saying what his own base wants to hear, and knows full well what would happen to his country and personal safety if American forces left on Obama's timetable. What's sad is that the agreement that Bush and Maliki have worked out through years of negotiation and partnership is now being claimed by Barack Obama as his own idea. The disgusting part of this is that the MSM is trying to give him that credit!

But, there are some who think this is a major mistake on Obama's part. After all, the President is the only person authorized by the Constitution to make official foreign policy and conduct formal negotiations. And, by the way, there is only one President! Take a look:

Of course, there's probably a reason that he's acting like he's already the President - he believes he is. According to one of his senior advisers, anyway:

"[Berlin] is not going to be a political speech," said a senior foreign policy adviser, who spoke to reporters on background. "When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally."

"But he is not president of the United States," a reporter reminded the adviser.

Obama's entire campaign is rife with supreme arrogance, and this is yet another example of it. Continuing that arrogance, Obama says that if he could go back to the beginning of the surge, he still wouldn't support it:

TERRY MORAN: If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?

OBAMA: No, because, keep in mind that-

MORAN: You wouldn't?

OBAMA: Well, no, keep in mind, these kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. You know, hindsight is 20/20. But I think that, what I am absolutely convinced of is that at that time, we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with.

Are you kidding me? The surge, which has brought success and order out of chaos and violence, the policy that has ultimately saved American lives and won American victory...and he wouldn't support it??

Did you catch why he wouldn't support it? 'Because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with.' He would refuse to support the successful surge simply because Bush was for it!!!

This is unbelievable! He is freely admitting that he would ignore something he knows to be good and successful policy simply to pick a political fight with an opponent! This is the Democrat presidential candidate, and representative of the modern Democrat party. This is why they truly cannot be allowed to control this country!

This unbounded arrogance led to some Obama acolytes justifying the statement by saying Americans don't really care about the surge, and aren't smart enough to figure out what a victory actually looks like, anyway. This seems to be one of the Obama campaign's main tactics - relying on the stupidity of their own voters.

But it's not a fluke. He's been given multiple chances to clarify his remarks. In an interview with Terry Moran (a long-time Obama worshiper), we see this exchange:

"Based on what you have seen here, would you say that you were wrong when you said that the surge would not make a significant dent in the violence?"

OBAMA: I did not anticipate, and I -- and I think this is a fair characterization -- the convergence of not only the surge, but the Sunni awakening in which a whole host of -- of Sunni tribal leaders decided they had had enough with Al-Qaeda. In the, uh, Shi'a community, uh, the militia's standing down to some degree. Uh, so what you had was a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, I think my assessment would have been correct.

Katie Couric pressed him for an answer three times (to her credit, she gave it a good shot):

Couric: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?

Obama: Katie, as … you've asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There's no doubt.

Couric: But yet you're saying … given what you know now, you still wouldn't support it … so I'm just trying to understand this.

Obama: Because … it's pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that's money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision-- to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.

Couric: And I really don't mean to belabor this, Senator, because I'm really, I'm trying … to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq …

Obama: Yes.

Couric … would exist today without the surge?

Obama: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there's no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that-- not just today, not just yesterday, but I've said that-- previously. What that doesn't change is that we've got to have a different strategic approach if we're going to make America as safe as possible.

Barack Obama simply cannot admit he was wrong about anything, nor can he give any credit to the American military! What is wrong with this guy?

Icing on the cake of his vile narcissism is the fact that Obama feels this trip -- very safe, thanks to the U.S. military, and custom-made as a giant photo op and campaign ad by the three major TV networks -- is his own personal tour of duty. What a hero, huh? His words are an insult to every man and woman who has actually done a real tour of duty!

The problem is that he can get away with it because of his enabling worshipers in the MSM. They're almost as arrogant as he is, sniffing about complaints of unfair and biased coverage of Barack Obama being 'hot air' while showing up to a McCain campaign arrival in New Hampshire with a single reporter and camera. Will the fact that McCain is close to selecting his VP even going to draw some coverage?

It's pathetic. Even worse, it's damaging to America because voters rely on the media to present them with enough information to make an informed decision. The MSM is so obviously failing at their responsibility that voters are not going to have enough information to make that informed decision. In most countries around the world, when you have only one candidate presented by the media, it's usually a dictatorship.

As predicted, this entire Obama trip is nothing more than a giant campaign ad (i.e. contribution) from the three major TV networks to try to make Obama look good on foreign policy, where he is hands-down incompetent. Shameful.

Also, by the way, Michelle Obama is continuing to put forward the Obamessiah as a true savior:

“I wish we had time to be divided. I wish we had time to be upset. To be angry. To be disappointed. I wish we did,” [Michelle] Obama said. “Because if we had time for that, then things wouldn’t be so bad right now. Instead, we’re in a place where another four or eight years of the world as it is will devastate the life of some child.”

Not only will he start (because we apparently haven't been doing it yet) caring for the sick, provide jobs to the jobless, lower the oceans, and heal the planet, he will also save the children. Wow, what a savior!

It would be amusing if they didn't apparently believe it themselves! Even Lefties have started to figure this out and take some digs at Obama's self-righteousness:

A convention hall isn’t good enough for the presumptive Democratic nominee. He plans to deliver his acceptance speech in the 75,000 seat stadium where the Denver Broncos play. Before a vote is cast, he’s embarking on a foreign policy tour that will use cheering Europeans - and America’s top news anchors - as extras in his campaign. What do you expect from a candidate who already auditioned a quasi-presidential seal with the Latin inscription, “Vero possumus” - “Yes, we can”?

The Obamas are disgusting and arrogant in the extreme. They are an absolute disaster policy-wise, and will go a long way toward destroying this great nation if they are voted into the White House. If their long-time associations with terrorists, socialists, racists, and radicals aren't bad enough, just look at the couple themselves. In a sane world, they wouldn't be given the time of day, even in the Democrat party.

Too bad there's so much ignorance and insanity in America today.

There's my two cents.