http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/obama-democrats-and-iraq.html

This is the week that the Democratic party ran up the white flag when it comes to the surge in Iraq. Leading the surrender was none other than Barack Obama, the Democratic party's presumptive nominee for president and among the most vocal critics of the counterinsurgency plan that has transformed the Iraq war from a potentially catastrophic loss to what may turn out to be a historically significant victory.

On Monday, Obama wrote a New York Times op-ed in which he acknowledged the success of the surge. "In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge," Obama wrote, "our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda--greatly weakening its effectiveness." A day later, Obama gave a speech in which he declared for the first time that "true success" and "victory in Iraq" were possible. In addition, the Obama campaign scrubbed its presidential website to remove criticism of the surge.

The debate, then, is over, and the (landslide) verdict is in: The surge has been a tremendous success.

Obama, in typical fashion, is trying to use the success of the surge he opposed to justify his long-held commitment to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq as quickly as possible. But turning Iraq into a winning political issue won't be nearly as easy as Obama once thought. He has stepped into a trap of his own making.

The trap was set when Obama repeatedly insisted that his superior "judgment" on Iraq is more important than experience in national security affairs. Judgment, according to Obama, is what qualifies him to be commander in chief. So what can we discern about Obama's judgment on the surge, easily the most important national security decision since the Iraq war began in March 2003?

To answer that question, we need to revisit what Obama said about the surge around the time it was announced. In October 2006--three months before the president's new strategy was unveiled--Obama said, "It is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we've been in right now."

On January 10, 2007, the night the surge was announced, Obama declared, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." A week later, he insisted the surge strategy would "not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly." And in reaction to the president's January 23 State of the Union address, Obama said,


I don't think the president's strategy is going to work. We went through two weeks of hearings on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; experts from across the spectrum--military and civilian, conservative and liberal--expressed great skepticism about it. My suggestion to the president has been that the only way we're going to change the dynamic in Iraq and start seeing political commendation is actually if we create a system of phased redeployment. And, frankly, the president, I think, has not been willing to consider that option, not because it's not militarily sound but because he continues to cling to the belief that somehow military solutions are going to lead to victory in Iraq.


In July, after evidence was amassing that the surge was working, Obama said, "My assessment is that the surge has not worked."

Obama, then, was not only wrong about the surge; he was spectacularly wrong. And he continued to remain wrong even as mounting evidence of its success gave way to overwhelming evidence of its success.

But Obama is not alone. Virtually the entire Democratic party, including every Democrat running for president, opposed the surge. For example, Senator Joseph Biden--considered by some pundits a foreign policy sage--declared, a few days before the surge was announced, "If he surges another 20, 30 [thousand], or whatever number he's going to, into Baghdad, it'll be a tragic mistake."

There's more at the link.

Wehner actually builds on a long story of Democratic surrender on Iraq, but what's interesting now is how the Obama turnaround genuinely demonstrates how wrong, for so long, the Democrats have been on this war.

Posted for nearly 24 hrs and not a single democrat rebutal.... Of course none of them will ever admit that the surge has worked or that our military and Al Maliki have turned things around. They had rather give credit to Al Sadr and secret deals......

I would accredit that fact to two reasons crickster.

#1- The article is a biased peice running on a Republican blog! Not the most accurate or believable way to get your news.

#2- This, http://www.justsayhi.com/topic/show/146973 and this, http://www.justsayhi.com/topic/show/146984

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/329myyan

But Obama is not alone. Virtually the entire Democratic party, including every Democrat running for president, opposed the surge. For example, Senator Joseph Biden--considered by some pundits a foreign policy sage--declared, a few days before the surge was announced, "If he surges another 20, 30 [thousand], or whatever number he's going to, into Baghdad, it'll be a tragic mistake."

Hillary Clinton, on the night the surge was announced, said, "Based on the president's speech tonight, I cannot support his proposed escalation of the war in Iraq."

Senator John Kerry said this in February 2007: "The simple fact is that sending in over 20,000 additional troops isn't the answer--in fact, it's a tragic mistake. It won't end the violence; it won't provide security;  .  .  .  it won't turn back the clock and avoid the civil war that is already underway; it won't deter terrorists, who have a completely different agenda; it won't rein in the militias."

Kerry's fellow Massachusetts senator, Ted Kennedy, declared that any troop increase would be "an immense new mistake."

Representative Dennis Kucinich, in this instance speaking for the mainstream of his party, put it this way: "It has been proven time and time again that troop surges don't work."

The democrats just need to go ahead and eat crow and say they were wrong about the surge...

They were right. The surge didnt work.
The reduction of violence can be directly related to Sadr calling a cease fire in Iraq's civil war.

The only reason Sadr ordered his militia to stand down was because he knew that his militia was about to get their a$$ kicked by the US military. The media had rather give credit to Al Sadr than our military. Al Sadr ran will his tail betwen his legs of course to Iran. The surge worked better than many ever imagined. Just goes to show you that commanders on the ground know what they are doing.

The only reason Sadr ordered his militia to stand down was because he knew that his militia was about to get their a$$ kicked by the US military.

Well that makes sense doesn't it?
Plus maybe, I know you'll never consider it, but maybe like he said he doesn't want to kill his own people.
Then there does exist his political aims of taking control of his country through the democratic process and seating more members of his party on the Iraqi Parliament!
Of course that would make everything Bush has said about him ridiculous!


Al Sadr ran will his tail betwen his legs of course to Iran.

This is an easy one. First, he was seen in Iraq not that long ago. Second, he has been in Iraq seeking to further his education and become like his father, two brother, and grandfather before him an Ayatollah. A goal that was interrupted by his resistance to Saddam after he assassinated his father and two brothers.
Third, wouldn't you hide rather than be killed by Bush's wishes or sent to gitmo under false pretenses? Nobody said he was stupid.


The media had rather give credit to Al Sadr than our military.

The media doesn't give Sadr calling a cease fire credit. That's me, connecting the dots on a logical time relation basis. I take nothing from our military, that's just a Republican tactic used to distract from the facts by hiding behind our troops and branding anyone who disagrees with them as anti-American!
The media for the most part has attended the same NeoCon indoctrination seminars as the 28% of brainwashed Bush supporters who still believe his lies after so many have been revealed!

I have read some articles that say Al Sadr orders to stand down were the only reason that violence was down - the truth is violence is down because of the surge. Also, Iraqi troops are now trained and Maliki is having tons of success.

And what is the approval rating of Congress?

The only thing I can agree with you is that Al Sadr wasn't stupid but he is defeated. Then again you don't have to be too brite to see the writing on the wall - surge, get the heck out.

The war never should have happened, so the surge is a moot point.

Back to this again???



Damn Republicans

Whether the surge is working or not, most Americans in polls are conveying that they want the troops brought home.
They don't want them over there for 100 years, as McCain said he'd do.

So it appears that Obama is going along with the public's wishes. Yet, some are *****ing about that.

Is it not a president's job to assess, and re-assess an issue and act appropriately? Perhaps Obama's change in attitude can be attributed to becoming better aware of where we are as far as progress in Iraq? I would be more worried if he implemented the all too familiar "stay the course" policy and steadfastly held to his opposition to the war despite knowing better of the situation at hand.

...or more like hiding his head in the sand...typical of DEMS..

It just goes to show you can't send a boy out to do a man's job.

(Not that I should have to explain but...no racial slur intended..it's an everyone expression only.)