Somebody's gotta do it.

Obama's statements regarding the surge in Iraq: January 2007 on the "Today" show: * "We're not going to baby sit a civil war." January 10, 2007, on MSNBC: * "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." January 10, 2007 on CNN. * "I did not see anything in the speech or anything in the run- up to the speech that provides evidence that an additional 15,000 to 20,000 more U.S. troops is going to make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that's taking place there." January 14, 2007 on "Face The Nation": * "We can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground." July 18, 2007, on the Today show: * "My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now." July 20, 2007 in New Hampshire: * "Here's what we know. The surge has not worked." September 13, 2007 at the Democratic Debate: * "After putting an additional 30,000 troops in, far longer & more troops than the president had initially said, we have gone from a horrendous situation of violence in Iraq to the same intolerable levels of violence that we had back in June of 2006. So, essentially, after all this we're back where we were 15 months ago... So, I think it is fair to say that the president has simply tried to gain another six months to continue on the same course that he's been on for several years now. It is a course that will not succeed." November 11, 2007 on "Meet The Press": * "...not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there." January 5, 2008: * "I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence. " January 29, 2008: * "Tonight Pres. Bush said that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that's just not true. Yes, our valiant soldiers have helped reduce the violence. But let there be no doubt—the Iraqi government has failed to seize the moment to reach compromises necessary for an enduring peace. That was what we were told the surge was all about. So the only way we're finally going to pressure the Iraqis to reconcile and take responsibility for their future is to immediately begin a responsible withdrawal." July 14, 2008 in a NYTimes Op-Ed: * "In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, 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. But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge." Say WHAT!!???

Well hell man! The violence has decreased nearly 80% in just over a year which ALLOWS the Iraqi government and the Shia and Sunnis the relatively peaceful opportunity to begin to come together without bombs going off and hundreds dying each day!

That's exactly what had to happen FIRST.

FIRST you stop them from killing themselves and THAT allows them to come together in a more peaceful way. And that's exactly what the surge was intended to do, to REDUCE THE VIOLENCE FIRST!

Geez - why is that so hard to understand!??

- Violence is down 70-80%.

- Iraq's largest Sunni bloc has rejoined the government.

- Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress according to a US Embassy in Iraq report requested by Democrats.

Obama was WRONG for opposing the surge, WRONG about his reasons, actually LIED about his position during the debates, continued to LIE about his opposition to the surge in his recent NYTimes Op-Ed - and is still completely blind, deaf and dumb about the success of the surge and how WRONG he was and still is about it.



Oh, and this one is just TOO choice to miss:

January 5, 2008:
* "I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence. "

ORLY!!??

"...not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there."

"I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground."

"I did not see anything in the speech or anything in the run- up to the speech that provides evidence that an additional 15,000 to 20,000 more U.S. troops is going to make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that's taking place there."

"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."



And the media simply gets a "thrill up their leg" whenever he speaks.

I thought according to the Dems..  Al Qaeda was never in Iraq..  It's not them to lie!

bump for the record.

Yeah, the guy is a liar.

He tells ya whatever you want to hear to get elected.

If this guy is president when I get back...

Yep and now he is trying to credit himself for the success.

Quoted: Yeah, the guy is a liar. He tells ya says or does whatever you want to hear it takes to get elected.

This.

See "politician".

The surge did work, but why no mention of the fact that violence might be dropping because the sectarian cleansing is almost finished?

Noted that sad observation from The Economist

Quoted: If this guy is president when I get back...

+1        

Did he ever say he voted against the war?

Quoted: Quoted: If this guy is president when I get back... +1

What-you don't think passing out HUMRATs in Darfur while having the TO&E of a high school ROTC program wouldn't be a worthwhile mission?

How could he have known without a crystal ball?

Now, now Mac. There you go again getting all factual and everything.

Obama is all about CHANGE. Including changing his mind about what he really meant by past statements. At least he HOPES this explanation will work.

ROFL

Oh boy, this is getting e-mailed to my libtard family and friends.

Didn't you read 1984 ? If he's for the surge now, he must have always been for the surge. The Ministry of Truth said so..

Quoted: The surge did work, but why no mention of the fact that violence might be dropping because the sectarian cleansing is almost finished? Noted that sad observation from The Economist

How so, last I checked there were still millions of Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds, hell, still a lot of Christians living in Iraq. I would agree that a lot of the "clans" have already settled their old scores.

Just have to cut Barry a little more slack