Wednesday, July 23, 2008

McCain Right on Surge

Thomas Friedman says McCain was "right on the surge." But the story has shifted to Obama's advantage.

Because the surge worked, Iraq is now safe enough to start withdrawing American troops and on a timetable.

What Friedman glances over is that Obama and his party were WRONG on the surge. That if his advice had been followed, there would likely be chaos in Iraq today.

Bush and McCain may have made the world and America safer for an Obama presidency but that's still a pretty big leap of faith, given his misjudgement and lack of experience.

Obama refuses to admit the surge worked, and disparages it every time he is asked about it. The left hammered Bush for not being able to admit mistakes. Bush, knowing that if he did, would be hammered all the more.

But Obama is supposed to be the anti-Bush, Change Man, a new kind of politician that tells the truth even when it is inconvenient. That should include admitting his own misjudgements and mistakes. He has done this occasionally on little things, like his phrasing of how Pennsylvanians hang on to their religion and guns out of bitterness and fear. But Iraq is a big thing. Defeating al Qaida there is hugely important. A peaceful and stable Iraq is hugely important to that region. Giving credit where credit is due would help not hurt his campaign.

UPDATE: But Obama is showing no signs he constitutionally capable of admitting this mistake as this here clearly shows.


Anonymous randal said...

Obama refuses to admit the surge worked, and disparages it every time he is asked about it. The left hammered Bush for not being able to admit mistakes.

Some "change", this.

Obama has shown himself to be nothing more than another partisan liar politician.
Some "change" and "unity", that's gonna bring.

For the idiots that believe all his hollow talk of "change" he could have promissed them "plywood" and they'd all be repeating that now.
"Ooo, plywood good! We need plywood! Bush is against plywood!"
Morons shouldn't be allowed to vote.

July 23, 2008 at 10:16 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

July 23, 2008 at 11:00 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

The Diano Awakening, on the other hand, is scheduled for 2013.

July 23, 2008 at 12:03 PM 
Anonymous r said...


July 23, 2008 at 12:30 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...


Thanks for the Friedman column. Good stuff. But then again Diano was right about the Anbar awakening. Maybe you can explain why CBS would edit the interview to exclude McCains inacurate statement.

July 23, 2008 at 12:32 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Sounds like McCain either misspoke or is trying to give the surge credit for every positive development in Iraq.

Whereas, on the other hand, Obama is trying to give it no credit at all.

Most reasonable, mainstream analysis favors McCain at least on Iraq. And it's fair to question, even disparage, Obama's judgement damning the surge before it began as hopeless.

July 23, 2008 at 3:22 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...


Ok. I agree with that, but I still dont understand why CBS would edit the interview. Any idea as to why?

July 23, 2008 at 3:38 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

July 24, 2008 at 3:28 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

More deception from the straight talk express. Fact check looks at the new McCain ads. Is McCain trying to BS his way into office?

The Truth on Troop Support?
July 22, 2008
A McCain TV ad says Obama "voted against funding our troops." He did, once. Every other time he voted in favor.
The McCain campaign is running a TV ad attacking Obama with statements that are literally true but paint an incomplete picture.

It says he "voted against funding our troops." He did – exactly once. Obama cast at least 10 votes for war-funding bills before voting against one last year after Bush vetoed a version that contained a date for withdrawal from Iraq.

It says he "hasn't been to Iraq for years." He was headed there at the time the ad was released, however, and had been there in 2006.

It says he "never held a single hearing on Afghanistan." It was the full Senate Foreign Relations Committee, not Obama's subcommittee, that had the hearings on this global hot spot, and Obama attended one of those. Over the same time period, McCain himself attended none of the Afghanistan hearings held by the Armed Services Committee on which he serves.

July 24, 2008 at 8:43 AM 
Anonymous randal said...

Hey, today even the Associated Lib Press came dangerously close to declaring the war as “over and won!”

That’s gotta make the Daves very sad. Because without “Bush’s war” to hang their treason on, how else will they express their shrill anti-Americanism now?

And can anyone believe that anti-war presidential candidate B. Hussein Obama really still refuses to admit that the surge worked …while calling for a similar surge in Afghanistan? (snicker!)

July 27, 2008 at 6:12 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

July 29, 2008 at 7:30 PM 
Anonymous randal said...

Doesn’t matter. You petty personal hurt feelings for Bush won’t ever permit you to concede a U.S. “win” in Iraq. Ever. You’ll spin and deny and grasp and contort, anything to avoid admitting it or giving Bush any credit whatsoever, no matter the facts. Because your politics are driven by emotion, your feminine feelings. And that is hardly a sound basis on which to base politics or policy, and certainly not something as important as war policy. This is why you Hurt Feelings weepers have been dismissed from all serious discussion on the war. You are a national joke now.

And how about your man B. Hussein Obama still refusing to admit that Bush’s troop surge worked as planned …while calling for the exact same surge strategy to quell the violence in Afghanistan?! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Gee, why would he advocate something that “didn’t work”? Lol…
What a partisan liar Obama has turned out to be. Some “change” and “unity”, that!

July 30, 2008 at 12:25 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home