Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Obama claims victory tonight

Hey Jim and other liberals
How are you going to feel when Obama says the war in Iraq that he said we shouldn't be in was a success because of the surge that he and other Dems said would fail.

Thank God Bush stayed the course despite Dems like Obama who can only think of things that end in failure.

I guarantee that if he personally takes credit for Iraq his numbers will be down 3-5 MORE points in a week.


Jim said...

I don't imagine he'll claim anything except meeting his promise to have combat troops out of Iraq by end of August 2010.

Any other success in Iraq, such as it is, is not his to claim, and he won't. There is no clear proof that the surge, in and of itself, was a success. Most agree that there were other factors involved in the eventual lessening of violence around that time, like the so-called "Sunni awakening." I'm pretty well-read on the subject of the Bush administration's handling of the war. It was one debacle after another. Everything bad that happened was predicted. Gamble, Fiasco, Catastrophe. Very descriptive words for it.

The Iraq war should never have happened. It cost a trillion dollars or more and over 4,000 American service people's lives.

Montana said...

Honestly, the surge was a battle for improving a War, not winning it. Thank God we are getting out, what a waste of our Youth and Treasury set on a bed of lies.

Anonymous said...

Why don't you show some respect for the families who lost loved ones in Iraq. If you weren't so obsessed with Obama you might see how delusional you are. Have you had your blood-sugar numbers checked lately?

Marshall Art said...

Should any war have happened? We can look back on any war and find fault in how the war began, whether or not our participation could have been avoided, whether our entry was well timed or not and definitely whether or not it was well run. Hindsight is not 20/20 if it is not objective and frankly, Jim, I'm not convinced the sources that you feel justify the claim of being "well read" are indeed objective. Thus, I provide now a few links that cannot be described as anything BUT objective, all by Randall Hoven, who takes great pains to compare apples to apples in each article.

This first one deals with the economics and disputes the "trillion dollar" claims by Bush detractors. (BTW, dislike for Bush fuels all of the specious reports about the war that have come to be considered, like all lefty claims, truth.) here is another related to the costs.

This article deals with justifications for the war, and this and this speak to what went wrong and what went right with the war. The successes are many and the failures have to be compared to realistic notions of what can be expected, and not hyped up ideas of zero casualties and the like.

Marshall Art said...

The question now becomes how many will look objectively at the war and understand and accept the reality? Biden has already taken the position that successes are somehow a result of the One's administration. Obama doesn't seem to have the class to acknowledge anything Bush did aside from some ambiguous statement regarding his intentions. Any chest puffing regarding a withdrawal must be predicated on some level of success, which itself must be due to what was already going on upon the unfortunate election of Barack Obama.