About This Blog
The scene was the New Hampshire debates. Moderator Charles Gibson asked the Democrats the following question: “We started the surge early this year. You all opposed it. But there are real signs it has worked…So I want to ask all of you, are any of you ready to say that the surge has worked?”
Most of the candidates went to the stock Democratic evasion, and said no political reconciliation has occurred, therefore the surge was a failure. Apparently, substantial reductions in violence and deaths mean nothing. Hillary Clinton didn't even apologize for her "willing suspension of disbelief" slander of General Petraeus, the orchestrator of surge progress. Being a Democrat means never having to say you're sorry, or even having to acknowledge reality.
But Barack Obama took first prize for creative fiction with his answer. Obama, in a statement not about the Audacity Of Hope, but just pure, brazen audacity, said, “Now, I had no doubt -- and I said at the time, when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence…I welcome the genuine reductions of violence that have taken place, although I would point out that much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province -- Sunni tribes -- who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shi'as. We should start negotiating now. That's how you change behavior.”
Obama actually said the DEMOCRATS are responsible for the reductions in violence in Iraq that have accompanied the surge !!! ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME ??? THE DEMOCRATS ??? The 'war is lost', 'impeach Bush', 'bring the troops home now', 'no war for oil', 'Al Qaeda's american political mouthpiece' DEMOCRATS ??? Oh, HELL NO !!! The only thing the Democrats are responsible for in the Iraq war is giving Al Qaeda hope. Except you, Joe Lieberman. Oh wait, the Dems kicked you out. You're an Independent now. Good for you.
Obama also said he opposed the surge even though he knew it would work, due to 'how wonderfully our troops perform' (yes, he's a politician, for sure). Why did he oppose it if he knew it would work ? Could it be because he knows that success in Iraq is very bad news for Democrats ? Could it be because the Democrats are heavily invested in failure in Iraq, that they care more about winning elections than winning the war ? No, I suppose that isn't possible at all. I must be all wrong about that. Sure.
What Obama also failed to mention regarding american troops leaving Iraq (beside the fact that they aren't), is that getting the american troops out of Iraq IS AL QAEDA'S NUMBER ONE GOAL. In 2005, a correspondence from Al Qaeda number two man Ayman Al-Zawahiri to Iraq Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi (now deceased) was intercepted, and has been declassified. In that communique, Al-Zawahiri outlined Al Qaeda's four stage plan for domination of the Middle East. Iraq was Job One. The four stages of Al Qaeda domination, in Al Zawahiri's words, are:
The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.
The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will try to jump at taking power.
There is no doubt that this amirate will enter into a fierce struggle with the foreign infidel forces, and those supporting them among the local forces, to put it in a state of constant preoccupation with defending itself, to make it impossible for it to establish a stable state which could proclaim a caliphate, and to keep the Jihadist groups in a constant state of war, until these forces find a chance to annihilate them.
The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.
The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.
I guess Barack Obama just forgot that, as has the rest of the Democratic party. I hope this also puts to rest the idea that Iraq isn't part of the war on terrorism. It's the central front. It's the central front because Bush (and Al Qaeda) made it the central front, that's true, but we still have to be successful there. There is no other acceptable option. Leaving Iraq before the Iraqi government can stay together and defend itself is nothing more than an invitation for Al Qaeda to fill the power vacuum, and isn't Al Qaeda the main enemy ? It may not be the position we want to be in, but it's the position we're in. It's about time the Democrats start dealing with the truth about Iraq instead of making up politically convenient fantasies like Barack Obama just did.