Except that "We" still doesn't include Junior Freshman Demoqrat Sen. Bereft-of-experience Oblahblahma.

enator President McCain has cosponsored Sen. Lieberman's resolution "Recognizing the strategic success of the troop surge in Iraq and expressing gratitude to the members of the United States Armed Forces who made that success possible." (VFF via Boker tov, Boulder!)

Not Obama bin Biden. That wartime success for America is nothing about which He would ever hope He can change His "mind" enough to officially recognize, much less praise.

Even when it's clearly shown how clearly wrong He's been all along.

For examples: Sen. Ogloom-n-dooma, on October 22, 2006, You said,

Given the deteriorating situation [in Iraq], it is clear at this point that we cannot [Whatever happened to "Yes, we can!!!!1!O!NE"?], through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve.

Except that, yes, we can say You're miserably wrong because it was clear, even then, we had every good reason to expect this very improvement — and more.

On January 10, 2007,

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there; in fact, I think [sic] it'll do the reverse.

Except that, not surprisingly (except to You, of course), the Surge has solved it and was never in any danger of "doing the reverse." But don't "think" any of this clear and strong reality-based evidence is somehow going to be sufficient to "persuade" You even now. You're on a roll... right off the political cliff.

Four days later,

We can send 15,000 more troops [to Iraq], 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.

Except that, obviously, those were the wrong "experts" and "military officers" You thought You knew or had been speaking to, because the Surge did make much more than a substantial difference in Iraq. They and You are all completely wrong — again.

On June 19, 2007,

I introduced a plan in January that would've already started bringing our troops home by now, with the goal of bringing all combat brigades home by March 31, 2008.

Except that, manifestly, Your "plan" would've meant our losing Iraq to the al-Qaeda terrorists and given us no choice but to send our Troops back in to try to reverse such a crippling and foolishly unnecessary strategic loss. If anyone had the "best" plan back then for prolonging this World War the most, it was You, Jr. Sen. O'Wrongo.

The next month, on July 18,

My assessment is that the surge has not worked.

Except that, typically of al-Demoqrats, You sound just like a six-year-old impatiently screaming from the back seat, "Are we there yet?!" every five minutes. (My apologies to everyone physically six years of age for that comparison. Next year almost all of you, unlike Him, will undoubtedly each possess the mental and emotional acuity of a seven-year-old.)

On September 12, 2007,

Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq; there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war, is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months, or one year, but now.

Except that, with all due respect ridicule, are You completely insane? Their "civil war," as You so inaccurately call it, consisted of al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorists — equipped and otherwise supported by Your no-preconditioned mad mullahs in Iran's murderously tyrannical theocracy — following that tried and true external-conqueror's tactic of seemingly siding with one group while committing the most outrageous atrocities imaginable against members of another group in order to sow a lasting, bloody division between the two until both groups weaken themselves to the point neither can resist being conquered. Except it didn't turn out to be anywhere near the tried and true tactic they thought they knew, thanks solely to our courageous Troops as well as our Iraqi allies, both Shiite and Sunni, who together correctly identified and bravely fought back against the real instigators of such atrocities, crushing them totally. Needless to say (except to You, of course), whether in Iraq or anywhere else there's no more foolish a "solution" than trying to "pressure" force anyone to cut some kind of deal with true-believer terrorists whose sole but extremely firm "precondition" is that You and every other infidel and apostate die in the most horribly painful manner possible. It's right there in their proposed "peace treaty" provision titled "Article I. Rivers of Blood for Allah," which, to summarize, has them agreeing to a cease fire only when everyone they've been firing at are, without exception, lying beheaded and mutilated at their feet. In short, You couldn't have been more thoroughly and miserably wrong again.

On January 5, 2008,

And I said at the time, when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform [as long as You don't have to visit them anytime they're wounded without Your campaign staff in tow, that is], at least 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.

Except that, lyingly, that's not even close to what You said "at the time."

Continuing, on February 21,

I think [sic] it is indisputable that we've seen violence reduced in Iraq.

Except that, indisputably, seeing it reduced to practicably zero is still not enough for You to formally declare on the Senate floor the Surge has clearly worked.

On April 8,

I also think [sic] that the surge has reduced violence and provided breathing room....

Except that, opportunistically, the only reason You're finally saying this is that no one — not even the terrorists — could still publicly hold on to the hope "it'll do the reverse" without coming across as being somehow more dangerously detached from reality than Yourself.

On May 2,

When I promise that I, we are going to bring this war [in Iraq, presumably] to a close in 2009, I want the American people to understand that I opposed this war in 2002, 2003, 4, 5, 6, and 7. So you can have confidence that I will be serious about ending this war.

Except that, for all intents and purposes, You're too late. The war's already over. We won it. Idiot.

As for Your no-preconditioned mad mullahs in Iran, on May 18,

Iran... (this country is) tiny compared to the Soviet Union. (It doesn't) pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.

Except that, really? Just two and a half weeks later, on June 4,

There's no greater threat to Israel or to the peace and stability of the region than Iran. The danger from Iran is grave and real and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Iran armed with a nuclear weapon poses a grave threat to the security of the world.

Except that, throughout the Cold War World War III, the relatively far more reasonable Soviet Union never posed as "grave and real" a danger to America and her allies' interests in the region, if not the world, as "tiny" Iran's psychotically islamofascist regime does now. Are you promising You'll be serious about "eliminating this threat" the same way you did about ending the now-ended war in Iraq? That is, long after someone else has taken action to actually eliminate it while you did nothing but criticize and try to undermine that action? What amount of confidence should the American people have in You regarding either matter, other than between zero and none?

Back to Iraq, on July 2,

The extraordinary work that our troops have done, they have performed brilliantly throughout the process ["Process"? What, the Surge is akin to elections, court hearings, or job applications?], and obviously I'm very pleased to see the reductions in violence that have occurred over the last several months. There is no doubt that because of their outstanding work [without any help from You, of course, Sen. "No Military Solution"], we have the opportunity to salvage the situation in Iraq.

Except that, undoubtedly, Obraindead One, You'll never be willing to cosponsor, as Sen. Pres. McCain has done, an official resolution "Recognizing the strategic success of the troop surge in Iraq and expressing gratitude to the members of the United States Armed Forces who made that success possible."

Finally, on July 21, after being asked whether You, knowing what You know now, would support the Surge,

No.... Well, no. These kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. Hindsight is 20/20 [© 2008 O'Lowerer O-Teh Oceans]. I think [sic] what I am absolutely convinced of is that at that time, we had to change the political debate, because the view of the Bush Administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with.

Except that, huh?

You know what? Don't bother cosponsoring Sen. Lieberman's Thank Our Troops resolution.

Lord forbid we might have to "change the political debate" as a result.


Sen. OdumbO's "Policy Pirouettes" above quoted in the August 2008, Limbaugh Letter, pp. 10-11.

Labels: aided and comforted enemies, al-Qaedaqratic Party, anti-America liberals (BIRM), clue-challenged liberals (BIRM), narcissist liberals (BIRM), World War IV

	7:43 AM

Comments (registered users)