Obama On Iraq

Loading

As more and more confirmation comes forward that Senator Obama tried to secretly prolong the Iraq War for his own political benefit, a group called Vets for Freedom has put out a political ad demanding that Democrats admit President Bush’s Surge worked.

There can be no doubt that the Democratic Party has opposed the war in Iraq since before it started. It was the core of Governor Dean’s 2002 failed Presidential attempt. It was the core of a dozen Democrats who ran for President in 2003 immediately after the invasion started. It was the defining issue of the 2004 election. It was the lie of the 2006 midterms that put Democrats in power. Some Democrats even admit it now.

What’s amazing is that the American people-who have been promised again, and again, and again, and again, and again that if they voted for Democrats, then Democrats would end (not win, but “end”) the war in Iraq by “redeployment” (not retreat?). Since millions of Americans still believe the Democratic Party lies that they will magically make everything better in Iraq (while deliberately, secretly, covertly, and overtly undermining efforts to succeed there)…one cannot reasonably wonder why it is that they opposed efforts to bring peace in Iraq (the Surge), and why they refuse to admit that they were wrong to oppose the effort to succeed (oppose the Surge). To admit such a thing would be to admit that they’ve deliberately misled and lied to the American people, and that would not be politically enabling just 48 days from a national election.

Apparently, Democratic Party leaders do not believe these people…

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I didn’t get the opportunity to post this yesterday.

I have difficulty believing that the Democrats would actually “Go There” but yeah, they went there.

*** Blood Boil Warning! ***

The DSCC created this ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl5hwE8ffgg

This is for my buddy, MH:

Iraq’s prime minister has said there are “serious and dangerous obstacles” to a deal with the US on the future status of American forces in Iraq.

Nouri al-Maliki told journalists that among other issues, a dispute remained over US soldiers’ immunity from prosecution by Iraqi courts.

But Mr Maliki said there was a deal with the US that all American troops should leave Iraq by December 2011.

The US currently has around 147,000 US troops based in Iraq.

Mr Maliki said American negotiators had not yet responded to Iraqi proposals for troop withdrawals but that there were “intensive contacts with the American side to resolve the points of argument”.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7622289.stm

No way, no how, no SOFA! (at least with bush).

; )

It was pretty much the same with Senator Barack Obama, Doug. He asked Iraqi leaders to refrain from making any deals on troop withdrawls when we were hammering out the details with them over the summer, when he visited. Some of his critics were paranoid enough to claim that he was doing it for personal gain, I don’t agree, I think he was sincere, and that maybe he was just doing this because he had his own plan on troops withdrawls. Either way, he was still not being flexible neither, because he was getting in the way of a deal between the U.S. and Iraq that he wasn’t a part of.