Who Is Right?
Perhaps, just before he left on his whirlwind tour, Barack Obama mused out loud in front of aides, "Won't someone rid us of this troublesome surge?" We'll probably never know.
Surely, all of the admitted and utterly shameless Obama apologists will now rush in to explain to us why Barack Obama's campaign has suddenly purged his web site of anti-surge propaganda, while claiming that his opposition to the surge has not abated, not even a teeny-weeny bit? The New York Daily News reported it today in a story by James Gordon Meek of their Washington Bureau.
And, according to a post by Mike Allen at Jonathan Martin's Blog on Politico, entitled "Surge meets purge" which was just put up just this morning citing that Daily News story, Barck Obama has now "refined" his website, BUT NOT HIS POSITION.
From Allen's post:
The McCain camaign [sic] is poking fun at Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for a report in today's New York Daily News that he had cleansed BarackObama.com of past criticism of the surge strategy in Iraq.
. . .
Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is 'not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events.' "
Got that last comment? Barry is NOT softening his criticism of the surge, but his website is being updated "to reflect changes in current events."
Like . . . the success of the surge, Wendy?
Does that mean that Barack Obama is now officially divorced from reality, or maybe the campaign spin will be that he is merely "of two minds" on the subject?
What is he going to say to our American troops when he gets to Iraq? You’ll remember them. They were the ones who put their lives on the line to turn the situation around. They were also the ones who succeeded in doing that? The surge policy that both Barack Obama and his new best friend, Senator Timothy "Chuck" Hagel (R - Nebraska) vehemently opposed? Tim is going to join Barack in talking to the troops there. He was dead wrong on the surge when he told CNN that it would be "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out."
Maybe Senator Obama will say something like this to the troops in Iraq:
"I continue to oppose the surge, but you guys sure did a good job in the surge."
And, by having officially taken on his own campaign now, will that not seem strange to the American people?
He says he wants them to elect him President, which would make him the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
Or, do you think the American people will just laugh that off as "politics as usual" from Obama?
Mind you, Barack Obama has had, shall we say, "differences" with his staff in the recent past on the topic of Iraq. In fact, his campaign spokesmen and strategists have taken to lying out loud about what his position on the surge was at the time it was initiated.
Check the side-by-sides below, and note the dates!
Here is Obama spokesman, Robert Gibbs versus Barack Obama:
and, here is Obama Campaign Chief Strategist, David Axelrod versus Barack Obama:
In the second clip, note exactly what Barack Obama said back then:
"I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the ground."
That was because at the time he said that, he had refused to talk to General Petraeus, the man who literally wrote the book (commercial version here) on counter-insurgency warfare. Petraeus was well known to be the military expert on the subject, from long before the surge was implemented.
Of course, Obama actually has talked to him, as you can see here:
So . . . what's next?
Well, for one thing, I suppose that honest comics will no longer have any trouble at all getting laughs about Obama, regardless of what Bill Carter reported in the New York Times today!