FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, on January 10 2007 predicted (watch HERE) that the surge of troops in Iraq would fail. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he told MSNBC. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Four days later he told CBS’s Face the Nation, that “we cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality — we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, 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 situation on the ground.”

Asked about these predictions on Sunday’s Meet the Press, Obama told NBC’s Tom Brokaw that “I know that there’s that little snippet that you ran,” referring to the MSNBC clip, “but there were also statements made during the course of this debate in which I said there’s no doubt that additional U.S. troops could temporarily quell the violence. But unless we saw an underlying change in the politics of the country, unless Sunni, Shia, Kurd made different decisions, then we were going to have a civil war and we could not stop a civil war simply with more troops.”

This has become an Obama meme — that during the debate over the surge he acknowledged that more US troops would mean a temporary reduction in violence.

But is it true?

No, it isn’t. But, American voters are not paying attention to the details and expect their politicians to lie with impunity when they come out on the wrong end of an issue.

And, clearly Obama has. Barry is just a typical pol who is a “rookie” on the world stage.

The gloves appear to be off between Obama and the MSM. No more free ride for “The One.”

McCain is RIGHT but the war is unpopular and Americans after five years in the Middle East are fatigued with war. Flap doubts that anyone is listening to Obama or McCain at this point about the Iraq War or care one iota about the war on terror in Afghanistan.

Run of the mill voters are more concerned about the economy (meaning their jobs) and the price of gas.

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of the dramatic turnaround in U.S. fortunes, “does not want a timetable,” Mr. Obama reported with welcome candor during a news conference yesterday. In an interview with ABC, he explained that “there are deep concerns about . . . a timetable that doesn’t take into account what [American commanders] anticipate might be some sort of change in conditions.”

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki’s timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama’s. More significant, it would be “a timetable which Iraqis set” — not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki “wants some flexibility in terms of how that’s carried out.”

Other Iraqi leaders were more directly critical. As Mr. Obama acknowledged, Sunni leaders in Anbar province told him that American troops are essential to maintaining the peace among Iraq’s rival sects and said they were worried about a rapid drawdown.

The answer is NO.

But the American MSM has reported “The MESSIAH’S” Iraq visit a success even though his policy has NOT been accepted favorably by the major players there.

American voters grow weary of the Iraq War and are showing little attention to withdrawal plans as their gasoline prices skyrocket.

Obama may be wrong but Americans hear “get out” and unfortunately agree.

Here is John McCain on the Iraq War Surge (interview with CBS’s Katie Couric):

Couric: Senator McCain, Senator Obama says, while the increased number of US troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What’s your response to that? McCain: I don’t know how you respond to something that is as– such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane [phonetic] was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that’s just a matter of history. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn’t make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed.

They were out there. They were protecting these sheiks. We had the Anbar awakening. We now have a government that’s effective. We have a legal system that’s working, although poorly. And we have progress on all fronts. Including– an incredible measure of security for the people of Iraq. There will still be attacks. Al Qaeda’s not defeated. But the progress has been immense. And to not recognize that, and why it happened, and how it happened, I think is– is really quite a commentary.

Couric: A commentary on what?

McCain: That Senator Obama does not understand the challenges we face. And … not understand the need for the surge. And– and the fact that he did not understand that, and still denies that it has succeeded, I think the American people will make their judgment. And I think that they will agree with me, that at enormous sacrifice, after four years, nearly four years of failed strategy, we have succeeded. And our troops will come home with honor. And we won’t be defeated. And there won’t be chaos in the region. There won’t be increased Iranian influence in the region. And it will have a bearing on what happens in Afghanistan, as well as the entire region of the world. And I’m proud of what they’ve done. And to deny their success– I think is a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened. The American people will make a judgment.

Here is Obama (as interviewed by Katie Couric):

Couric: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops … help the situation in Iraq?

Obama: Katie, as … you’ve asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There’s no doubt.

Couric: But yet you’re saying … given what you know now, you still wouldn’t support it … so I’m just trying to understand this.

Obama: Because … it’s pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that’s money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision– to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.

Couric: And I really don’t mean to belabor this, Senator, because I’m really, I’m trying … to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq …

Obama: Yes.

Couric … would exist today without the surge?

Obama: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there’s no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that– not just today, not just yesterday, but I’ve said that– previously. What that doesn’t change is that we’ve got to have a different strategic approach if we’re going to make America as safe as possible.

Flap continues to be amazed that this “ROOKIE” will be allowed to triangulate or fail to make a position statement on “THE SURGE.”

Suppose it comes from Obama’s days when he was allowed to vote PRESENT in the Illinois Legislature.

Damn Obama. Man up and take a position. Take a stand.

Interesting how they are NOW taking credit for success.

Will American voters realize this or is there Iraq War and Bush fatigue?

Team McCain said al-Maliki was playing domestic politics and the LEFT said “The One” had been correct about the Iraq War all along.

Now, the astute AP is talking about a SQUEEZE by Iraq politicians.

The Iraqi prime minister’s seeming endorsement of Barack Obama’s troop withdrawal plan is part of Baghdad’s strategy to play U.S. politics for the best deal possible over America’s military mission.

The goal is not necessarily to push out the Americans quickly, but instead give Iraqis a major voice in how long U.S. troops stay and what they will do while still there.

It also is designed to refurbish the nationalist credentials of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who owes his political survival to the steadfast support of President Bush. Now, an increasingly confident Iraqi government seems to be undermining long-standing White House policies on Iraq.

You think?

The truth is without President Bush remaining steadfast on his Iraq War policy and John MCCain actively supporting the SURGE, the Iraq War would not have been won.

Will American voters remember?

Or care?