Obama Not Crediting Troops For Stability In Iraq
Obama Disgracefully Benefiting From Iraq Success
Isn't it enormously ironic that Barack Obama now finds himself the unintended beneficiary of the Iraq surge that he so vocally — and wrongly — opposed?
It seems that Obama's untimely calls for a withdrawal timetable have lingered long enough to have some merit in the eyes of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Al-Maliki told Der Spiegel, a German magazine, that U.S. troops should withdraw from Iraq "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
Assuming al-Maliki said it, and there has been some dispute, it doesn't make Obama right — even now. But it's hard to imagine al-Maliki would be saying anything helpful to Obama's campaign today if the United States had followed Obama's disgraceful surrender policy instead of implementing the surge in 2007, over his strenuous objections.
Obama Democrats have been adamantly opposed to our intervention in Iraq from the beginning, including when they voted for it for political expediency and then later claimed they were duped into it.
NBC’s Andrea Mitchell (Of All People) Blasts Obama for ‘Fake Interviews
Even purple-stained Iraqi fingers, symbolizing the advent of democracy in Iraq, didn't stir an ounce of empathy, much less sympathy from these capital-D Democrats, who persisted, undeterred, in their demands for retreat, regardless of the consequences.
It seems in this life, anyway, there never will be accountability for those Democrats who opposed this operation every step of the way (following their initial fraudulent support) and continue to do so, no matter the state of the "facts on the ground."
Their mentality is always the same, and we see it rearing its head again on Iran, which by all accounts is dangerously close to producing a nuclear weapon. They believe it's always better to negotiate and that the enemy with whom we are to negotiate must always be given the benefit of the doubt — especially against the sinister United States.
Iran, they believe, has legitimate grievances, just like the 9/11 terrorists, who may not have attacked us had we addressed those concerns. So we must always begin with a presumption of the enemy's good will, then sweet-talk, then cave — anything to avoid violence and at any cost.
Think I'm exaggerating?
Then explain Obama's statements shortly after the 9/11 attacks, reported in the Hyde Park Herald Sept. 19, 2001: "We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine or connect with the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy . . . most often . . . grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."
If Obama's own words aren't enough to convince you of his reckless appeasement mentality, let's look at the position of one of his senior advisers, Richard Danzig. According to the U.K.'s Daily Telegraph, Danzig told the Center for a New American Security, "Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security."
Meanwhile, while the U.S. has reached out in sacred diplomacy to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the dictator has thumbed his nose at us, defiantly refusing to discontinue his uranium enrichment program. I suppose we need more empathy for him, too.
As we speak, Obama struts around Iraq with his signature arrogance and bereft of the shame he's earned for his insistence we withdraw in defeat there, pretending that history's repudiation of his surrender policy is a vindication of his prescience and wisdom. And they tell us President George W. Bush will never admit his mistakes!
How strangely paradoxical it would be if Barack Obama were to sail into the presidency on the strength of his own failures. Crazier things have happened.
Story Here
As Surge in Iraq Succeeded, Embedded Reporters Receded
American Heroism Goes Unreported in Iraq
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What an arrogant SOB! According to Obama it was the "Sunni Awakening" that is responsible for the Stability on the ground in Iraq, NO!! The Troops did NOTHING! According to Obama. Is this Lunatic completely out of his mind? 10 out of 18 Provinces have been handed back over to the Iraqi's, they are getting their Political **** together, and if it wasnt for our Troops and the Surge, NONE of this would be going on. Did the Sunni's kill Zarqowi? NO! Did the US Troops? YES! Did the Sunni's take back Fallujah? NO! Did the American Troops? YES! Did the Sunni's take back Al Anbar Province, Baghdad, Diwaniyah, Ramadi, Mosul, Karbala? NO! Did the US Troops? YES! Is Barack Obama that out of touch with reality? YES!!!
And having to be reminded that he isnt the President yet on his whirlwind world tour, is the height of arrogance at it's worst!
Isn't it enormously ironic that Barack Obama now finds himself the unintended beneficiary of the Iraq surge that he so vocally — and wrongly — opposed?
It seems that Obama's untimely calls for a withdrawal timetable have lingered long enough to have some merit in the eyes of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Al-Maliki told Der Spiegel, a German magazine, that U.S. troops should withdraw from Iraq "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
Assuming al-Maliki said it, and there has been some dispute, it doesn't make Obama right — even now. But it's hard to imagine al-Maliki would be saying anything helpful to Obama's campaign today if the United States had followed Obama's disgraceful surrender policy instead of implementing the surge in 2007, over his strenuous objections.
Obama Democrats have been adamantly opposed to our intervention in Iraq from the beginning, including when they voted for it for political expediency and then later claimed they were duped into it.
Even purple-stained Iraqi fingers, symbolizing the advent of democracy in Iraq, didn't stir an ounce of empathy, much less sympathy from these capital-D Democrats, who persisted, undeterred, in their demands for retreat, regardless of the consequences.
It seems in this life, anyway, there never will be accountability for those Democrats who opposed this operation every step of the way (following their initial fraudulent support) and continue to do so, no matter the state of the "facts on the ground."
Their mentality is always the same, and we see it rearing its head again on Iran, which by all accounts is dangerously close to producing a nuclear weapon. They believe it's always better to negotiate and that the enemy with whom we are to negotiate must always be given the benefit of the doubt — especially against the sinister United States.
Iran, they believe, has legitimate grievances, just like the 9/11 terrorists, who may not have attacked us had we addressed those concerns. So we must always begin with a presumption of the enemy's good will, then sweet-talk, then cave — anything to avoid violence and at any cost.
Think I'm exaggerating?
Then explain Obama's statements shortly after the 9/11 attacks, reported in the Hyde Park Herald Sept. 19, 2001: "We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine or connect with the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy . . . most often . . . grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."
If Obama's own words aren't enough to convince you of his reckless appeasement mentality, let's look at the position of one of his senior advisers, Richard Danzig. According to the U.K.'s Daily Telegraph, Danzig told the Center for a New American Security, "Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security."
Meanwhile, while the U.S. has reached out in sacred diplomacy to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the dictator has thumbed his nose at us, defiantly refusing to discontinue his uranium enrichment program. I suppose we need more empathy for him, too.
As we speak, Obama struts around Iraq with his signature arrogance and bereft of the shame he's earned for his insistence we withdraw in defeat there, pretending that history's repudiation of his surrender policy is a vindication of his prescience and wisdom. And they tell us President George W. Bush will never admit his mistakes!
How strangely paradoxical it would be if Barack Obama were to sail into the presidency on the strength of his own failures. Crazier things have happened.
Story Here
As Surge in Iraq Succeeded, Embedded Reporters Receded
American Heroism Goes Unreported in Iraq
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What an arrogant SOB! According to Obama it was the "Sunni Awakening" that is responsible for the Stability on the ground in Iraq, NO!! The Troops did NOTHING! According to Obama. Is this Lunatic completely out of his mind? 10 out of 18 Provinces have been handed back over to the Iraqi's, they are getting their Political **** together, and if it wasnt for our Troops and the Surge, NONE of this would be going on. Did the Sunni's kill Zarqowi? NO! Did the US Troops? YES! Did the Sunni's take back Fallujah? NO! Did the American Troops? YES! Did the Sunni's take back Al Anbar Province, Baghdad, Diwaniyah, Ramadi, Mosul, Karbala? NO! Did the US Troops? YES! Is Barack Obama that out of touch with reality? YES!!!
And having to be reminded that he isnt the President yet on his whirlwind world tour, is the height of arrogance at it's worst!
Labels: Backstabbing Democrats, Middle East, Obama, World Tour
posted by Marie's Two Cents | 6:01 AM
11 Comments:
Obama is proving that he will follow ONLY a personal political agenda if he is Commander In Chief and that success on the ground or the advise of commanders will not matter in the least.
Not only is that dangerous for the troops but for the security of the Nation!
Ken,
Obama is NOT qualified to be Commander-In-Cheif.
You are right, he is dangerous!
apparently arrogance is his new middle name Marie..pftt!
This Jerkass is trying to play down the success of the surge. It's so obvious.
He won't even praise the job that our troops have done and are doing!
WomanHonorThyself said...
apparently arrogance is his new middle name.
No Angel, his middle name is still "Hussein"
Indeed it is "Hussein" Marie, although he would definitely love us to forget about that.
I thought I was angry before he made this trip... now I'm furious! What an incredible arrogant mindless snob he is. Of course I knew that before, but this trip has really intensified my disgust for him.
It is obvious he hates our military and everything it stands for. With him in control both Clinton and Carter will look good by comparison. To answer your question: "Yes... he is indeed out of his mind!"
Obama would be a disaster as commander-in-chief--he doesn't understand Iraq at all.
Hussein is a great danger to our country just like those who are propping him up. His change is change for worse.
Wild Phil wanted me to say Hi for him.
Ronald Reagan would be spinning in his grave if he read these Petty, mean-spirited, classless bickering and sniping. If these posts show the values that so-called conservatives are so intent on protecting, most of you should be ashamed of yourselves. Not to mention the shallow gullibility that allows so many of you to be deceived into thinking that a lying drug addict like Rush Limbaugh and a flip-flopping business hatchet-man like Romney who lied his way into a governorship of the country's bluest state are the "true" conservatives. Romney couldn't even keep illegals off his Belmont lawn, and you somehow bought the idea that he'd do a better job than the senator from Arizona at handling illegal immigrants?
Now we face Barack Obama a ultra liberal for president. I don't think McCain can beat Obama when so many conservatives won't vote at all.
For me, anyone who spent one day in Hanoi Hilton gets a lifetime pass.
To all supporters of Obama and McCain (and any others too) Is it possible to just acknowledge that an American citizen, one of our very own (Obama), spoke on the INTERNATIONAL STAGE today? That, politics aside, the WORLD was listening to one of us. And that possibly ONE OF US can impact even a small part of global thinking. Let's be AMERICANS today and not lose sight of the magnitude of what has happened not matter which side of the aisle we're on. Yes....optimistic!
Angel,
I think that's his first name, Arrogant Hussein Obama.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DD,
He didnt give the Troops nor General Patraeus one iota of credit.
What a slap in the face to the US Military.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gayle,
Of all the gall!
The Audacity of this guy is unreal!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Danny,
Obama should be President of the EU not America.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Humbled Infidel,
I hope he stay's in Germany.
Tell Phil HI from me :-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
a.j.w.
Put a sock in it!
What do you know about President Reagan!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jonathan,
To all supporters of Obama and McCain (and any others too) Is it possible to just acknowledge that an American citizen, one of our very own (Obama), spoke on the INTERNATIONAL STAGE today? That, politics aside, the WORLD was listening to one of us. And that possibly ONE OF US can impact even a small part of global thinking. Let's be AMERICANS today and not lose sight of the magnitude of what has happened not matter which side of the aisle we're on. Yes....optimistic!
Are you out of your friggen mind? Why should we be American's TODAY, and not YESTERDAY? Why not TOMORROW? Because Obama spoke in Germany? Whoopie!
Sorry, Obama doesnt do it for me.
And you need to put down the Obama Kool-Aid
Post a Comment
<< Home