Obama Inadvertently Reveals Why the ’Surge’ Is Working

penguincoffee.jpg Johnny Wingnut

In, perhaps, the sharpest public disagreement yet between front runners for their respective party nominations, Democrat candidate Barack Hussein Obama and GOP candidate John McCain clashed over the following statement.

John Mc Cain

“If al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way which secures our homeland and our interests abroad.”

This would explain why the “surge” is working. Apparently, al Qaeda isn’t even in Iraq, much less forming a base there.

The statement, which was made by Obama during the Democrat debate in Texas last week, brought swift criticism from McCain.

Barack Obama

“I have some news,” said McCain. “Al Qaeda is in Iraq…it’s called al Qaeda in Iraq…and my friends, if we left they wouldn’t be establishing a base; they’d be taking a country.

Later, Obama followed up McCain’s criticism of his statement with a couple more zingers of his own in which he placed the blame for the Iraq war on McCain (and Bush Jr. respectively), asserted that in going to war in Iraq, McCain and Bush missed the opportunity to hit al Qaeda where it hurts (in Afganistan), and that because of Bush and McCain’s “negligence,” al Qaeda is stronger now than at anytime since 2001. He also added, that he knew al Qaeda was in Iraq and that they wouldn’t be there had not “George Bush and John McCain decided to invade …”

The Surge in Iraq

Were his statements accurate? No. But that won’t stop the screaming thrall in this video from voting for him.

But what I find most interesting is how Obama dealt with some well deserved criticism. He changed his position and then played the blame game. Either he knew al Qaeda was in Iraq or he didn’t. If he didn’t, then why did he say the opposite at this rally? However, if he did know al Qaeda was based in Iraq, then why did he erroneously question that fact in the earlier statement? No matter how you slice it, he comes up a liar.

After he lied, waffled, flip flopped…whatever (liberals call that changing your mind), he very efficiently blamed McCain for not only the war, but for al Qaeda’s presence in Iraq…and all this was done to the sound of applause.

I’ve learned two things from this exchange: all being a candidate for president qualifies you for is the right to be a smooth talking, lying, blame thrower and that upholding politics as usual is, now, defined as “change.”


Finally, in the September 2007 edition of CQ Obama made this statement:

“I’m in this to win, I want to win, and I think we will win. But I’m also going to emerge intact. I’m going to be Barack Obama and not some parody.”

That’s why he’s employing the same old tricks from the political dirty trick book used by politicians the world over. That’s why he’s been caught lifting the lines of other people’s speeches as though they were his own. That’s why he speaks in what others have called “soaring oratory,” but it’s an oratory almost utterly without substance…and that, in part, is why Barack Obama is beating the pants of Hillary Clinton right now.

She chose positions; He chose the flowery language of hope. She let her loud mouthed husband stump for her on the campaign trail; Obama, on the other hand, has kept his better half mostly in the shadows. She’s a woman…he’s a man and this is America. Need I say more?


~ by johnnywingnut on March 4, 2008.

9 Responses to “Obama Inadvertently Reveals Why the ’Surge’ Is Working”

  1. “She chose positions; He chose the flowery language of hope” and as you know we Americans are real suckers for that. We are so low and so depressed and broke and barely hanging on that when any guy comes around offering us some hope for the future we are more than happy to grab that up and run with it. It worked for Reagan, hell it worked for JFK too so if Obama is copying a winning stategy than yeah he’ll probably win. Now as to what he really stands for…hmmmmm, don’t really know about that now do we.

  2. In my opinion, he stands for the status quo…as do all the front runners. If voters were looking for candidates of change, they should’ve looked to the pitbulls, which were knifed in the back by their own parties and ignored, then vilified…then ignored, then vilified again before finally being left for dead. Now we come to it, the moment we’ve all been waiting for…when we vote for the candidate we dislike the least.

  3. I suspect voting for the candidate we dislike the least is what we’ll be doing until we croak. Boy, I sure can’t wait to get off work and get to the booth. Just feel the aura of excitement and joy permeating the electrons, woo.

  4. even though i am an adamant hillary supporter … i have to admit that there is, to me, something just a tad cringeworthy at the thought of bill clinton with too much time on his hands wandering around the east and west wings !!!

    … just trying to find a potential bright side of obamamania …

  5. JWN- I’m right there with you on these Schmucks from whom we have to choose. It’s a slap in the face.

    Obama appeals to people’s “Inner Child,” that place in our hearts that still believes in fairy tales, and knights in shining armor, but unfortunately life is not a fairy tale, and the knight usually turns out to be a wolf in disguise.

    I understand his appeal, but I simply have no faith that the world is going to be “Transformed” by a politician.

    People, regular schmucks, are the ones who have the power to do that, but we’re too busy being distracted by the shiny thing/things.

    However, he is correct; the SURGE is not WORKING! The Iraqi government just met with Ah’ma’nutcase from Iran.

    Chimpy is simply trying to wait out the rest of his term, and then pass this nightmare onto the next person.

    It’s his favorite strategy, and has worked for him his entire life, so, why change now?

  6. You can always find a silver lining, provided you’re willing to look hard enough. But I always have the persistent thought and the attendant feeling that the political process is futile. I suspect most Americans share that sentiment, which explains why more are not participating in the process. This leaves the system to the Kool-Aid drinkers (which make up the majority of voters), the thoughtful and those of us who grudgingly participate in the game of politics.

    I’ll add that the critical spirit which possesses me during most political seasons seems like a copout at times. And I think it’s because we live in the epoch of flame-n-fluff politics. The climate of “style over substance” pretty much defines the mainstream political field and Americans, by and large, seem unable to tell the difference between the two. Because of that climate, it’s easy to be critical. It’s even easier to just dissent. It’s easy to find fault, but much harder to support a candidate, particularly when you’re dealing with your own doubts and biases concerning them.

    Will we recover? No. That’s the cynic in me. But I’m also an idealist, which is why I continue to rant, rave, bitch and otherwise rage against the political machinery. It’s because deep down inside I have a hope…an idealic, arrogant hope that we can reform the system and bring it back to its “glory days.” It’s not much of a hope, but it is there, albeit just barely. (Wow! those last few lines sounded…Oblahmahish, didn’t they?) Means I need to stop typing now and go grab a beer.

  7. So when the two major parties fulfill their unspoken promises to provide unsatisfying candidates for president, do you guys vote for 3rd party candidates?

  8. The question was phrased as follows: “If we were to pull out of Iraq next year, what’s the worst that could happen, what’s the doomsday scenario?”

    The president replied: “Doomsday scenario of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States. The biggest issue we face is, it’s bigger than Iraq, it’s this ideological struggle against cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives.”

    Mr. Bush, at long last, has it not dawned on you that the America you have now created, includes “cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives?” They are those in — or formerly in — your employ, who may yet be charged some day with war crimes.

    Through your haze of self-congratulation and self-pity, do you still have no earthly clue that this nation has laid waste to Iraq to achieve your political objectives? “This ideological struggle,” Mr. Bush, is taking place within this country.

    It is a struggle between Americans who cherish freedom, ours and everybody else’s, and Americans like you, sir, to whom freedom is just a brand name, just like “Patriot Act” is a brand name or “Protect America” is a brand name.

    But wait, there’s more: You also said “Iraq is the place where al-Qaida and other extremists have made their stand and they will be defeated.” They made no “stand” in Iraq, sir, you allowed them to assemble there!

    As certainly as if that were the plan, the borders were left wide open by your government’s farcical post-invasion strategy of “they’ll greet us as liberators.” And as certainly as if that were the plan, the inspiration for another generation of terrorists in another country was provided by your government’s farcical post-invasion strategy of letting the societal infra-structure of Iraq dissolve, to be replaced by an American viceroy, enforced by merciless mercenaries who shoot unarmed Iraqis and then evade prosecution in any country by hiding behind your skirts, sir.

    Terrorism inside Iraq is your creation, Mr. Bush!

  9. Most talk about “al-Qaeda” these days, from both parties, is dripping with ignorance. It is phenomenal that we’ve gone almost seven years without asking seriously, “What motivates them?”

    For an enlightening answer, check out the article “The Next Generation of Terror” in the April issue of Foreign Policy Magazine.

    The original “al-Quaeda” (i.e., bin Laden’s clan) has largely been dismantled and destroyed. They have no means to actively recruit new terrorists.

    Most of the “insurgents” whom we are now calling “al-Qaeda” had no interest in being terrorists until they heard about Muslims randomly being rounded up and saw the images of Muslims being abused in our concentration camps.

    Our continued military presence in that region feeds the anti-American propaganda mill, and legitimizes anti-American hatred in the eyes of prospective terrorists. It’s not a matter of killing the remainder of insurgents who are currently fighting. Their deaths will only inspire more teenagers to drop out of school and defend Islam against what appears to them to be a mass extermination. The more of them we kill, the more will want to fight Americans.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: