Political Punch

"We have spent a trillion dollars or more" Peter Mineo

Actually, it is just over 500 billion but who's counting. We just spent 300 billion on the mortgage bailout.

We can thank Obama and the Democrats for the Anbar Awakening

In fact, it was the prospect of an early U.S. withdrawal, not the surge, that prompted the Sunni insurgents to change sides, according to the American officers who worked with their leaders. A fascinating article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs by Georgetown professor Colin Kahl and retired Gen. William Odom quotes Marine Maj. Gen. John Allen, who ran the tribal engagement operations in Anbar during 2007, saying that the Democratic sweep in the 2006 midterm elections and the increasing demand for withdrawal by the American public "did not go unnoticed" among the province's Sunni sheiks.

"They talked about it all the time." Allen also told Kahl that the Marines exploited those concerns by telling the sheiks: "We are leaving ... We don't know when we are leaving, but we don't have much time, so you [the Anbaris] better get after this." Kahl and Odom write that "the risk that U.S. forces would leave pushed the Sunnis to cut a deal to protect their interests while they still could."

They also quote Maj. Niel Smith, the operations officer at the U.S. Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Center, and Col. Sean MacFarland, commander of U.S. forces in Ramadi during that crucial period, who wrote a long article on the Anbar awakening in the journal Military Review. "A growing concern that the U.S. would leave Iraq and leave the Sunnis defenseless against Al-Qaeda and Iranian-supported militias," they recalled, "made these younger [tribal] leaders [who led the awakening] open to our overtures."

I don't see that shape shifting to make himself look better as the situation evolves argument. The surge wasn't exactly a success in March of '07 or even August of '07 when he had already revised his initial assessment to his present line, even though at the time the original line was more fitting to the situation as stability had actually declined. If you want to assert that he's changing his image to fit the situation, then you should prove which came first the change in image or the change in the situation.

TBrown, I read the transcript and your point about "this debate" could indeed be true (which Mr. Tapper also points out) although the context of the conversation infers they were speaking about the debate back in '07. Still, Obama appears to shape-shift as he sees progress being made during the surge so that he can be on the winning side of the issue. If it went sour, he would have not had made the shift. This makes him a typical politician, not standing on principle - which he claims not to be (a typical politician, that is). Simply put, I don't trust him any more than I trust any other politician. He's already talking about being in office for two terms. They never quit. It's all about being in power. It has nothing to do with helping you or me. The incumbent party always wants to stay the course and the other party always says we need change. You will see if Obama wins the election, all his supporters will be thrown under the bus - until 2011. Then the promises will start all over again.

Avembe, I think most people who seriously follow what's happening on the ground in Iraq do understand the critical role the Iraqi government and people play. The goal of the surge was never to single-handedly beat up all the bad guys ourselves, but rather to be an enabling tool to allow the GOI and IA breathing room to get on track. In my view, it is more often those opposed to our presence and the surge that forget that proportionally no ally in Iraq has had higher casualties than the IA and ISF, including us. At the hight of the insurgency in 2006 when so many would use 100 US deaths in a month to justify retreat without ever mentioning the 300+ IA and ISF members that also gave their lives in the pursuit of liberty. Antiwar.com compares the total of 4124 US deaths against 314 "Other Coalition Troops" and proudly tallies the Iraqi civiliand slaughtered by terrorist mass bombings as if the US were forcing AQI to kill them, but do you notice who's missing?

If Iraq resembles Vietnam it is only in the eager willingness of the "anti-war" crowd to ignore the goals, efforts and sacrifices of our allies in that nation and to casually throw that country and her people under the bus simply to further their own political ambitions.

Jake,

Read Obama’s statement carefully:

"Unless we say that we're going to occupy Iraq indefinitely, we're gonna continue to see problems."

Well this is exactly what McCain said. McCain rightly saw that it was critically important that you demonstrate to your enemy that you have an unwavering commitment to your cause and that you will not quit.

Here Obama clearly articulates, albeit subconsciously, the merit of McCain’s statements (and actions). If Obama really believed what he is saying here, why did he not say it himself? Because Obama’s record and campaign statements are clear. On this issue, as on every issue, Obama puts his own personal ambition, his desire to be President, ahead of the welfare of our country! Obama was willing to see the US lose in Iraq, he has built a record and a campaign around this position, and if it happened he would likely be our next President. Imagine though what would happen to oil prices and to our economy if we left Iraq to civil war and terrorists.

If the press would begin to take a serious look at Obama’s statements, his record and campaign, they will see that this is the central theme of his campaign….look for others failures, highlight them and tell the country that you intend to “change” the situation. Obama’s position on the war in Iraq highlights the risk of supporting “change” without articulating clear policies that will guide this change.

Obama is running for President of the United States as an empty vessel, afraid to vote or take a stand on controversial issues, because it may cost him the Presidency. In the campaign he is quickly developing a reputation for double speak and has a clear legislative record of voting “present” whenever the issue is too controversial. I have an abiding faith that this country will NEVER elect a President like this.

McCain has a solid record of addressing tough issues head-on and has proven that he has the political and personal fortitude to stick with an issue until it is resolved. On the tough issues of the day, the deficit, social security, campaign finance reform and the war McCain has a record of strong bipartisan leadership. McCain has proven that he puts the welfare of this country ahead of his own political an personal well being. This is truly “change we can believe in.”

heybutithought chuck hegel said this shouldnt be talked about any more.

making tough decisions, taking responsibility for our stands isnt important.

i care more about what the germans think about stuff.

this is incredible!!!
The Anbar awakening and the cease fire are ALSO part of the reduction of the violence there...But why people here don't want to acknowledge that the Iraqis ALSO have a big part, a big responsability in that process...
It's ALL about the US !!!!...Of course the US troops are making a tremendous work(not to mention all soldiers who died or got injured there)
Even McCAIN told Stephanopoulos on ABC that the Americans are seen as "liberators"...why do very few people mention the Iraqis' part ?
Some people are saying that Obama is a liar, are accusing him of flip flopping all the time
You better serious guyz ‘because If you choose your next president on that criteria,especially MC CAIN…i mean…people can’t be that blind…mouhahahahahahaha !!!!!!!!!!!!

I just have to wonder, is moving troops from Iraq (now that the surge has WORKED) over to Afghanistan considered 'a surge' too? Does this mean the all powerful, all mighty, all egotistical, and all baloney Obama IS SUGGESTING THAT A SURGE IN AFGHANISTAN IS THE BEST TACTIC????? The bigger they are, the harder they fall. In the Fall.

Call me a stickler for technicalities, but instead of injecting my politics into this particular question of whether he was mistaken or lied about his statements during debate over the surge, I would like to look at what Obama actually said, without reading more into his words than can be proven. A simple definition of the word you left out of your quote in the following sentence makes a huge difference in the reality of what Obama said.

"So the accuracy of this claim depends on when you consider the 'debate' over the surge to have taken place."

The word you left out was "this". Obama said "this debate" not "the debate", "that debate", "the official senate debate". Why does this matter? Well "this" is a pronoun or adjective that denotes something that is present or near in place or time. I personally don't call the February before last near in place or time, so I can only presume that Obama referred to the greater debate that reaches to the present time. So in truth he could have said "troops could temporarily quell the violence" the day before he made the statement that he made on meet the press and still not be lying.

People love to argue; excuse me, "debate."

What is more valuable than the actual quotes of the person you are for or against?

Of course, there's no bias here, right?

And are you doing/have you done a "fact check" on McCain's statements made in support of Invading Iraq? Was he wrong about how long it would take, how easy it would be, etc.? Isn't it more important to be right on the big strategic issues?

michaelp

Your logic is curious. You want to discard Obama as a candidate because of his position on the surge yet you are willing to accept McCain's lack of insight in the original decision.

A year ago, I agreed with Obama on the surge 100%. I hoped the surge would work but frankly believed it couldn't.

I definately agree that simply reducing the violence temporarily was not the purpose of the surge - the surge was to provide a safe environment for political progress to be made. Failure to achieve that political progress would have to be defined as a failure.

However, even I, a staunch war critic, one who was in the tiny minority against the war from the very begining and against all of Bush's disasterous tactics (sending in too few troups, the notion that we could do it on the cheap, de-bathification, etc) - even I have to acknowledge that the Iraqi government is on track or ahead of schedule on 15 of 18 political solutions according to recent congressional report - the very solutions the surge was to make happen.

Now that isn't 100%, but as late as last fall Iraq had made almost no progress on any of the 18 areas of political turmoil. This is why we all argued it wasn't working.

However, since violence has been quelled, the Iraqi's are making a lot of very real progress on a wide array of political sticking points - again, they are now on schedule or ahead of schedule on 15 of 18 subjects. The Iraqi's have almost achieved that which we, the Democrats, said was the goal of the surge a year ago.

By the very same logic we used to say the surge was a failure last fall, I now have to acknowledge that it is working.

I was wrong. But at least I am man enough to admit it.

You can't have true leadership if you are not willing to acknowledge reality whenever it doesn't happen to be politically expedient, particularly in matters of national security. That Obama will play politics with such a critical matter of state is outrageous. That his judgement was wrong (as was mine) on the matter - the single most important national security matter to have been discussed since Obama's run for President - is very relevant. I too have thought that McCain is too old. But I'll take an old, but competent person who knows how to win a war over an incompetent (brilliant, charming, likeable and very articulate when in front of a teleprompter, but lacking judgement because he has no experience) anyday.

This is the Presidency of the United States of America we are talking about here, folks, not American Idol.

Obama surrounds himself with smart people? Like Wright? Hmmmmm....

"The fact of the matter is McCain knowing what he knows today (no weapons of mass destruction) would invade Iraq all over again." - wlw100

Did McCain ever say this? DO NOT state something as fact unless you have proof. We DO NOT know that at all! Unless you have proof, then YOU are just a liar!

Peter,

I would suggest that at least part of the time (although I have no proof of this) Clinton was on the job during these trists which would not make it a private matter. If you did the same in the janitor's closet where you work, would it be a private matter?

Clinton lied and IMO a lot of people died on his watch and soon therafter. If he had his "eye on the ball" as you say, perhaps these terrorist attacks would not have happened. We will never know because he messing around when he was supposed to be keeping the country safe, which I hear is the top priority of the POTUS.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but at this point, let's finish up in Iraq for the sake of the dead and wounded - service and civilian - and move on.

And I don't think this is a non-issue for Obama. The point of the article being he lied about what he said or didn't say. It appears that he thinks it's the truth because he said it. You seem to call Bush on the carpet for lieing but have no problem when Obama lies. How do we know we won't some day be saying Obama lied and people died.

The fact of the matter is McCain knowing what he knows today (no weapons of mass destruction) would invade Iraq all over again. To me that is alot bigger deal than Obama admiting the surge worked. McCain said on This Week. The guy is a warmonger. He would still have more than 4 thousand troops die and another 30 thousand injured before he admits the war was wrong. That is a way bigger issue than the surge. If McCain is elected we will be at war with Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Peter.

See my post at 8:22. Iraq is a dead horse anyway. Only 17% of voters consider it an issue (as of two months ago). Things petty much back to normal, airline starting back up, commerce incresing daily. Only major question is how do we respond to the Israeli/Iran issue with re. to leaving some troops in Iraq as Obama has agreed to do. Nite.

Manitu,

Reread my comment. I said that this is one possibility. One of the three is true and any one of them disqualifies him from the presidency.