''Obama won't acknowledge the surge in Iraq is a success''
|
|
Comments |
Mail to a Friend
Tags: Barack Obama, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, George Bush, John McCain, Katie Couric, Osama Bin Laden
Tags: Barack Obama, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, George Bush, John McCain, Katie Couric, Osama Bin Laden
Such is the chant from the side of Barack's opponents. "He won't even admit the surge worked," I often hear McCain supporters spit out.
Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the start because he felt it was a distraction from going after Osama Bin Laden. When asked whether he thought the troop surge worked, during a July 22, 2008 interview with CBS' Katie Couric, Obama stated: "There is no doubt that the extraordinary work of our US forces has contributed to a lessening of the violence."
Here's an analogy that even Elisabeth Hasselbeck should get:
If a parent tells a child not to touch a hot stove because it will burn them and they still touch it, they will probably burn themselves and require at the very least an application of ointment to diminish the affects of the burn. No one should question the parent's judgment about whether the ointment was a success in healing the child; what should be the issue is why the child didn't heed the warnings of the parent to start. The ointment is doing the work well and the child has to learn from his mistakes but what should the parent have done? Tied the child up and locked it away in its room until it turned 21?
In this analogy, the ointment are our brave, hard working troops. The parent is Barack Obama. The child, obviously, George Bush.
Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the start because he felt it was a distraction from going after Osama Bin Laden. When asked whether he thought the troop surge worked, during a July 22, 2008 interview with CBS' Katie Couric, Obama stated: "There is no doubt that the extraordinary work of our US forces has contributed to a lessening of the violence."
Here's an analogy that even Elisabeth Hasselbeck should get:
If a parent tells a child not to touch a hot stove because it will burn them and they still touch it, they will probably burn themselves and require at the very least an application of ointment to diminish the affects of the burn. No one should question the parent's judgment about whether the ointment was a success in healing the child; what should be the issue is why the child didn't heed the warnings of the parent to start. The ointment is doing the work well and the child has to learn from his mistakes but what should the parent have done? Tied the child up and locked it away in its room until it turned 21?
In this analogy, the ointment are our brave, hard working troops. The parent is Barack Obama. The child, obviously, George Bush.
I have never understood the mentality that says to ignore accusations as if they will go away or that people will see through them. Most voters as we have seen are not that smart. They buy into the lies. John Kerry tried that and failed big time. Democrats in general have been very bad at countering republican claims. Too, too often they let them go poorly answered with the result they become accepted as fact by the public. However, it isn't mudslinging to defend yourself especially against wild accusations.
Obama should have and still should say the Surge worked mostly because of the political changes rather than because as McCain claims more troops were used at a time when Obama said to pull them out. Failing to answer this charge only helps to make Obama look weak on international affairs and military matters, which of course plays right into McCain's hands.
that's where the surge failed, because bush did not take advantage of the troops success. to do nothing on his part is the failure.
to suggest otherwise is deceiving and shows this admin lack of ownership for the crisis they created when they failed to engineer stabilizing Iraq with the aide of those allys in the area.