Obama: Surge Succeeded Beyond ‘Wildest Dreams’

Obama has a problem admitting when he was wrong. Sure, he may have been right about opposing the Iraq war, although he wasn't forced to vote upon it, so history will never know. Especially, when the chips are down, he caves (See FISA).

The troop surge in Iraq has been more
successful than anyone could have imagined, Barack Obama conceded
Thursday in his first-ever interview on FOX News’ “The O’Reilly Factor.”

As recently as July, the Democratic
presidential candidate declined to rate the surge a success, but said
it had helped reduce violence in the country. On Thursday, Obama
acknowledged the 2007 increase in U.S. troops has benefited the Iraqi
people.

“I think that the surge has succeeded in
ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his
initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded
beyond our wildest dreams.”

However, he added, the country has not had
enough “political reconciliation” and Iraqis still have not taken
responsibility for their country.

First off, Obama as President isn't going to get to pick and choose what decisions are placed in front of him. Sometimes, he will be facing a tough choice, and one that the circumstances leading up to it, are beyond his control. So, if the war in Iraq is still going when he is President, what choices is he going to have to make?

He opposed the surge in troops when it was presented to him, and now violence levels have gone down significantly. Had he gotten his way, Iraq may very well have been thrown into civil war and be ripping itself apart as we speak.

Had he been President at the time of the Iraq war starting, if we are to believe him that the war should not have been started to begin with, Saddam would still be torturing people by the thousands, and nothing would be done about it. Obviously, sanctions weren't doing enough, and Saddam was flourishing under these conditions.

So, at what point do you say enough, and do something about it?

Obama says that not enough "political reconciliation" has happened and they have not "taken responsibility for their country". I find that rather idiotic, especially since we have now handed over half of the country to Iraq's security forces, (last I checked it was 10 or 11 out of 18 provinces), and Iraqi security forces are now leading raids 70% of the time according to General Petraeus.

How is that "not taking responsibility for their country"?

How are we to trust Obama when it comes to Iran, when he says:

The Islamic republic is a “major threat”
and it would be “unacceptable” for the rogue nation to develop a
nuclear weapon, he said.

“It is unacceptable for Iran to possess a
nuclear weapon, it would be a game changer,” Obama said. “It’s
sufficient to say I would not take military action off the table and
that I will never hesitate to use our military force in order to
protect the homeland and the United States’ interests.”

How far must Iran go before you'll order a military strike? When they have a nuclear weapon? Who's to say that we strike at where we think the weapon is, and all of a sudden, it's not there? What happens if Iran actually uses that weapon? How are you going to explain the loss of thousands or even millions of lives, and trillions of dollars in damage to the families of the dead?

This is exactly what I'm railing against Bill Clinton about. There was a known threat, and Bill did little to nothing about it. Now, we have a hostile nation with a nuclear program, that has evidence that they are looking for a way to make weapons out of it, and Obama simply wants to talk.

That's fine, but where's the redline? So far, Obama's only said "once they have a weapon". At that point, it's too late.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com