« Missing Swope Park’s poinsettia display | Main | We worship same God »

December 31, 2008

Surge in Iraq wasn’t courageous

The ongoing revisionist attempts by President Bush and his administration are laughable. Most absurd of all is the attempt to color the surge as a courageous and bold decision. I would say, “Let’s be honest about this,” but with this group, why start now?

Whether you agree with the premise of or the need for this war or not (I don’t), the surge was not a courageous decision, and it was not a bold decision. It was really the only thing a cornered president could have done.

The choices were to stay the course (at that time a disaster, to say the least), to withdraw (never an option for this egomaniacal administration) or to “surge.” What’s bold? What’s courageous? It was the only choice a lame-duck, inept president in a disastrous time, in the last gasps of an incompetent presidency, could have done. Give me a break on the courage.

Stop the revisionism. Nothing they say will change the facts.

Jeffrey L. Roitman
Overland Park

Comments

Arminius

"Your twisting and turning of the past into a pretzel just doesn't work. Obama listened to people who were in a position to know what they were talking about, people who said publicly that what we were being told by the administration wasn't the case. Despite your lame attempts to discredit him, Obama was right about the war from the beginning and Bush was wrong."

More lies from Jim. In 2002 Obama was a little-known state senator in Illinois. He had no contact with anyone who knew about the situation in Iraq. In fact, the Democrats who knew anything about Iraq, especially those associated with the Clinton administration, were saying the same things as Bush. As Hillary Clinton acknowledged in 2004, the intelligence regarding Iraq was consistent from Clinton to Bush 43.

Arminius

"He was also right about the lack of WMD in Iraq, about the lack of a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, about the need for more troops from the beginning, about the lack of a clear objective, and about the bloody insurgency that followed the invasion. President Bush and his supporters who were cheerleading the war were wrong on all those counts."

Jim's lying again. When Obama spoke in opposition to the invasion of Iraq (at a lightly anti-war rally in Chicago), he never said Iraq had no WMD, had no ties to al Qaeda, or anything about an insurgency. You can read the speech for yourself here:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

The only thing evident in that speech is that Obama is a partisan, little man.

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

Obama proven right about Iraq? You aren't serious. How was he right?

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

Invaded or attacked? Which one or both?
LBJ? I don't think Ford attacked or invaded anyone. he kind of just let disco do it's thing.

solomon

*****quick Quiz*****

Who was the last US President who did not invade anyone.

Jim

Eng,

Of all the nonsensical, ridiculous things to say about the fact that Obama has been proven right about Iraq, "The Clintons disagreed, so he must've been wrong" has got to be the worst.

A remark like that simply shows that you know you're wrong, but can't bring yourself to admit it.

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

Positive results in Iraq? Apparently the Iraqis seem to be happy about the outcome as we turned over the "Green Zone" to Iraqi military. Only time will tell. It could be worse, Saddam could still be hanging out and the shoe throwers would be gassed or tortured for expressing their opinions.
Will you support the invasion of Pakistan or some other nation under your messiah?

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

I think since he has become the PE, he was briefed and the look on his face changed that day. He is now scouring to make sure we stay on top of China's efforts to upgrade their space program. he vowed to shut down these modernizations of weaponry during his campaign. Maybe he sees the threat and is using some common sense? I was actually surprised to see he was even concerned about this issue. Protecting our satellites is importnat so the CDF will be able to infiltrate and reach their objectives.

putkidsfirst

Such logic! Obama is wrong because he disagreed with the Clintons. Gotcha.

The reason Obama opposed the surge is Bush had mismanaged this invasion for 5 years. He had lost credibility and had proven time and time again that he was incapable of positive results in Iraq. So why support yet another poorly thought out plan? The surge was also more of a splurge of our valuable resources. So the only sensible stance was to oppose the splurge.

Engineer

Jim
The Clintons both disagreed with Obama and supported the war as did many Democrats. Obama had no special information, he was just following the "Community Organizer" priority line. He has not demonstrated that he is an original thinker as he has yet to present any new ideas.

Jim

Eng,

Your twisting and turning of the past into a pretzel just doesn't work. Obama listened to people who were in a position to know what they were talking about, people who said publicly that what we were being told by the administration wasn't the case. Despite your lame attempts to discredit him, Obama was right about the war from the beginning and Bush was wrong.

Engineer

Jim
Obama, when he originally opposed the war, was a state senator in Illinois. He had no real information on which to base his opposition, he was just following the party line. Perhaps he has some original, seminal thoughts in mind, but if so he has yet to disclose them.

Jim

Eng,

The good news is that Obama was right about the Iraq war from the start, especially at a time when people of lesser courage and leadership skills were buckling because public sentiment was going the other way.

He was also right about the lack of WMD in Iraq, about the lack of a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, about the need for more troops from the beginning, about the lack of a clear objective, and about the bloody insurgency that followed the invasion. President Bush and his supporters who were cheerleading the war were wrong on all those counts.

This is one reason why Obama scores a 75% with the American people on being a strong and courageous leader. That same 75% number also say they'll be happy to see Bush go.

EL

"Thursday, February 21, 2008
Obama: "End the War in 2009"

Tom Hayden reports for The Nation,

In his victory speech in Texas Tuesday, Barack Obama promised to end the Iraq war in 2009, a new commitment that parallels recent opinion pieces in The Nation. "

blogspot.com

Engineer

The good news is that President Bush had the foresight and savvy to have the surge implemented. The bad news is that Obama opposed it either due to lack of understanding and expertise or just to stay in line with the Democrat's "Defeat At Any Cost" mouthings. “Mouthings”, not policy. They have the congressional control, but they don’t even try to do anything about Iraq.

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

At least Bush never wore an Obama dress for an onstage performance like that idiot performer Katy what's her name. What kind of moron wears clothing wirth someone's face on it.

Mark Robertson

Since when have President Bush or members of his team said that the decision to bring on the surge was courageous? Many of us who support President Bush's foreign policy have said that his leadership in the war has been courageous, but President Bush hasn't said anything close to it.
I do see though that Move On has gotten its propaganda talking points out for the end of the Bush term.
There is not one example that can be given when President Bush was dishonest. Just the some ole pathetic attempt to bring him down to the level of elected demagogues.
Egomaniacal? Right. This from someone who supports Clinton and Obama.
In case you haven't noticed, the effort in Iraq is now a great success. Why do you think the media is not covering it anymore?
Sounds to me like Jeffrey is panicked that the truth will begin to come out about President Bush's great leadership in preemptively going into Iraq and likley stopping WW III in its tracks. Yes, I know that the Afghanistan situation has deteriorated a bit. Possibly need a surge there.
Generations will be thankful for President Bush's great leadership, and the great efforts of our great military, in rooting out terrorism.
No matter what President Bush would have done though, the Bush Derangement crowd would be spewing their hatred. Thankyou.

Mark Robertson
Independence

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

Jeffery what war do you endorse? Believe me I tell say this, no matter where or who Obama decides to scrap with, he will be praised. Just like he prasied for his pectorals gliztening in the sun while W was targeted as unfocused for being on his treadmill. Blame Congress equally as Bush, they voted yes and they continued to allow the funding.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/31/AR2008123103121.html

EL

While congressional democrats boldly and courageously give Bush even more money for a war they called immoral??

mianotkia

Agree JJ, that was indeed a very "rich comment" by old Jeffrey.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright