Big Dogs Weblog

Obama Deceives About His Position on the Surge

Jul 25, 2008 Military, Political

It has been my position that when Obama says things like “I have always said”, “let me be clear about that”, or “what I said at the time”, what he is really saying is that he changed his position but does not want others to know that he has done so. He has been contradicting himself at every turn and when he does so he starts off by stating that his current position has always been his only position.

Obama has now nuanced his position on the surge in Iraq. He is telling people that he always said that the additional troops would have an impact:

What I said was even at the time of the debate of the surge, was if you put 30,000 troops in, of course it’s going to have an impact. There’s no doubt about that. The question is, does it solve our larger strategic questions and do the costs involved, uh, do they outweigh the benefits.”

It is not an outright lie to say the additional troops would have an impact but to claim that this was his position is remarkably untrue. Barack Obama made it clear that he did not believe that the additional troops would solve any problems with regard to violence and he specifically stated that he believed it would do just the opposite (increase violence).

“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. I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. So I am going to actively oppose the president’s proposal… I think he is wrong.”

Now that the violence has gone way down and the surge is a huge success (even the surrender monkeys are silent) Barry is altering his original position. He was 100% wrong about the surge and he now claims that he always said that our troops would have an impact. I will give him the benefit of the doubt on that but in so doing I will say that the impact he said they would have was a negative one and the reality is they have had a positive impact. Barry was completely wrong about the kind of impact the troops would have.

So, suffice it to say, Obama was wrong about the kind of impact the additional troops would have. He said the surge would not work, he later claimed the surge did not work and now he is acting as if he called the right shots all along.

When Obama tells you what his position has “always been” look it up because it is usually not the case.

The man lacks the experience and leadership skills required to run this country or serve as Commander in Chief.

Source:
Gateway Pundit (with video)

The Times UK has a great piece mocking the great one. It is hilarious.

Tags: changing positions, lies, Obama, surge

Obama; Wrong Then and Befuddled Now

Jul 23, 2008 Political

Barack Hussein Obama absolutely opposed the surge of troops into Iraq. This is an undeniable truth and his own words on the subject depict not only a man who opposed the surge but told us that he believed it would have the opposite effect. He said it would cause more violence, not less. Doug Ross documents Obama’s position on the surge:

• Barack Obama, Jan. 2007: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraqis going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
• Democrat Barack Obama, Jan 2007: “I don’t think the president’s [surge] strategy is going to work.”
• Democrat Barack Obama, Jul. 2007: “My assessment is that the surge has not worked.”
• Democrat Barack Obama, Oct. 2007: “[The surge is a] complete failure… Iraq’s leaders are not reconciling. They are not achieving political benchmarks.”

There is no doubt that Obama opposed the surge, thought it would not work and declared it a failure. So what does the presumptive Democratic nominee do when confronted with the fact that the surge has been a success despite the defeatist attitude of him and his fellow Democrats? He refuses to admit he was wrong and then says that, knowing what he knows now, he still would not have supported it. Then, just to show how really out of touch he is, he advocates for a surge in Afghanistan. In other words, he wants us to do in Afghanistan what worked in Iraq but which he opposed and would still oppose were it presented today. Or would he since he is supporting it now but in another country? Confused yet?

We should have seen this coming since Obama told us six months ago that success was based on Democrats being elected to the majority:

What we have to do is to begin a phased redeployment to send a clear signal to the Iraqi government that we are not going to be there in perpetuity. Now, it will — we should be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I welcome the genuine reductions of violence that have taken place, although I would point out that much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province — Sunni tribes — who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shi’as. We should start negotiating now. That’s how you change behavior.

And that’s why I will send a clear signal to the Iraqi government. They will have ample time to get their act together, to actually pass an oil law, which has been — they’ve been talking about now for years. [emphasis added] Flopping Aces

So, which is it Senator? Were the troops the reason for the decreased violence or was this brought about because Democrats were elected to the majority? Why do you want to put more troops in Afghanistan (to emulate the strategy in Iraq) if you opposed it as wrong then and still would not support it today?

Obama is busy trying to appease everyone in order to get elected. He needs to appeal to the left wing moonbats who oppose any military action and want an immediate withdraw. He needs to appeal to people who want victory as the exit strategy so he can pick up those votes and he needs to appear as if he knew what he was talking about all along so that people will not think he is inexperienced or a flip-flopper.

If he admits he was wrong about the surge then his base will think he abandoned them. He will suffer a reverse of Hillary’s fate. She refused to admit her vote for the war was wrong and she lost support. If he admits that the surge was the right thing to do he will lose support as well.

The problem is, he was wrong. He was wrong about it all and now he is being called on it. The Gateway Pundit has video of an interview with Katie Couric of CBS and Obama comes off as smug and uninformed. Obama’s position is that the surge worked but it was bad strategy. In the interview, he makes a weak attempt at deflecting to how money could have been used to do other things. It is quite pathetic.

Here is an idea. Pick a position and stick with it. If you are wrong then have the testicular fortitude to say that your initial assessment was wrong and move on from there.

The problem is, Obama is trying to be everything to everyone and in the end it will be his undoing. As the next 15 weeks move on more Americans will see that Obama really lacks the experience to lead us in these perilous times.

Obama had better get it right because if he is elected and then takes actions that cause us to lose the war it will alienate a lot of this country. Americans, all real Americans, can’t stand the thought of losing. Obama’s plan is to lose and if we had followed his desires we would be doing just that.

I just wish that the Democrats had as much desire for our country to win the war as they do to win elections.

Others:
Stop the ACLU | Hot Air | Marc Ambinder | Jake Trapper | Commentary Magazine | Brutally Honest

Tags: defeat, inexperience, katie couric, McCain, Obama, surge, triumph, war

Pelosi Credits Iran for Surge Success

May 29, 2008 Military, Political

Not long ago Nancy Pelosi admitted that the surge in Iraq was working. This goes against the words of the Obamessiah who said that the surge was not working and neither was anything else and that we have lost the war. Pelosi had to do something so as to keep the message clear so what did she do? She creditied Iran, of all entities, for the success of the surge.

Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space, a time for the political change to occur to accomplish the reconciliation. That didn’t happen. Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn’t accomplish its goal.

And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians. [emphasis mine]

This would be the same Iran whose goodwill has led to IEDs in Iraq that are maiming and killing our soldiers and the same Iran whose goodwill has provided weapons to the terrorists we are fighting. To Nancy Pelosi though, those Iranians are of such goodwill that they are responsible for the success of the surge. Anyone want to tell me why it is that neither Pelosi nor any of these other scumbag Democrats can give the credit for the success of the surge to our soldiers? That is, assuming we can get them to admit that the surge has been a success. Pelosi went out of her way to give credit for the work of our troops to the ENEMY.

Why did she do that? First of all liberals cannot give credit to our troops because they loathe the military and they feel that uneducated rubes join the military because they have no other options. Another reason that Pelosi gave praise to Iran was to undermine the Bush Administration. Iran is building nuclear weapons and there is chatter that military action will take place (I don’t think it will, at least not large scale and maybe not by us) against them to stop it.

Pelosi’s praise weakens the argument that Iran is a threat to the stability of the region and to the US. Most importantly to the Democrats, Pelosi’s mention of Iran and negotiations is a deliberate attempt to gloss over the inexperience of Obama which he demonstrates with his naive “negotiations without preconditions” position. Pelosi has now made it appear as if all we needed to do was talk to Iran and they would work with us. They negotiated and are, at least partly, responsible for the success of the surge. She did nothing more than try to give credibility to B. Hussein Obama and his position of weakness with regard to negotiations.

It is a crying shame that the Speaker of the House would give any credit to our enemy but then again we are talking about someone from the left.

Let me clear this up for Nancy Pelosi and all the other liberal twits who are unable to understand what is going on. Not only was the surge a success but it was a success because of the hard work of our military and only because of their hard work.

Iran has been nothing but a thorn in our side and they have caused the death of many of our troops. Nice to see Pelosi give such people praise.

Others:
Ace of Spades
Stop the ACLU

Tags: iran praise, Obama, Pelosi, selfless service, soldiers, surge

Pelosi: Iraq is a Failure

Feb 10, 2008 Political

Squeaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said that Iraq was a failure and that the surge has not produced the desired effects. Pelosi made certain to praise the troops while attempting to disparage a strategy that is working albeit not as quickly as we might like. The ground game is much better, fewer of our troops are dying there than citizens are on American streets and here we are not engaged in a “civil war.”

It is amazing to me that Pelosi and her brood insist on telling the Iraqis at what speed they need to move and how they should be progressing when our own Congress is off more days than it works, accomplishes little, and has divided the country. I see Pelosi’s remarks as nothing more than empty rhetoric designed to inject the Iraq war into the presidential campaign in a fashion that does not openly demonstrate the left’s hate of our military. Pelosi wants Iraq to be a failure because it will help her party with power and she cannot really show failure without making it all up.

Iraq is moving along slowly. Our country took a long time to establish as did those Japan and part of Europe after WW II. These things do not happen overnight but with little mention of the war lately (because it has been good) the Democrats need to ramp up the negativity so they can try to win more seats and the presidency. They want it to be bad because what is good for the country is bad for the Democrats and they cannot have that. Pelosi joins fellow Democrat (and fellow idiot) Harry Reid in declaring failure. If only Democrats would fight our enemies as hard as they fight to win and keep office, we would win and win quickly. It gets difficult to fight the enemy over there and the enemy here at the same time.

Pelosi also said that Afghanistan was not settled because President Bush took his eye off the ball. This is one of their canned phrases and it is one that rings hollow. Bill Clinton is the one who took his eye off the ball. He created the atmosphere that allowed us to be attacked because he failed to respond to force with force. He allowed bin Laden to live on at least three occasions. He and his toadies deny this but many in the know have attested to it as true. Perhaps this is what Sandy Burglar stole form the National Archives, information showing Clinton took his eye off bin Laden. Actually, he allowed bin Laden to escape.

This is because Bill Clinton could not pull the trigger. He would not give the order to shoot. Clinton has a nasty history of not completing tasks (think blue dress) and his inaction allowed our enemies to attack us. There are many on the left who deny this but there is too much evidence to ignore it and bin Laden himself said that Clinton’s weakness in Somalia is why he attacked us, thank you very much.

Pelosi is a partisan hack who has no idea whatsoever as to what is taking place in Iraq. Pelosi visits with our enemies instead of our troops so she has no idea what is taking place. Not that she would take the word of our troops over the word of our enemies anyway.

I said it before and I will say it again. It is too bad the Capitol was not hit on 9/11. By sparing that building and the people in it, they were able to become complacent with regard to our security. If many of them had died then we would be having a different discussion. The wrong people died on 9/11.

Screw Nancy Pelosi. She is a troop hating, liberal twit who could not lead a group of people out of a burning building. She will certainly rot in hell, hopefully sooner than later.

Source:
The Politico

UPDATE:
I wonder if Pelosi told these guys about our failure?

Tags: anti american, iraq war, Pelosi, surge, troop hater