Well, did the surge work or not?

Of course.

But you'll not hear any democrats admit it.

They were dead set on losing the war, Bush and a very dedicated military force turned it into a win anyway.

 

What Obama has repeatedly said and what most of us who are against the war in Iraq have repeatedly said, asking about the surge is irrelevant. We should not have been there to begin with. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that answer.

It is like a firefighter putting a torch to your house then expecting you to pat him on the back for putting it out before it completely burned down. Had he of not torched it there would have been no need for him to put it out.

Had we of not gone into Iraq, there would have been no need for a surge.

 

This pretty well says it all. I agree. :thumbs:

 

What irks democrats the most is that America's military forces won a war.

What irks them secondmost is that not more of them died doing it.

If only more of them had obliged the defeatists and been killed, democrats might have been able to turn victory into defeat.

 

If we won why are we still there? And why do the generals project 50K troops will be needed 1.5 years from now? In combat roles none the less...

 

I don't think we'll know whether or not the surge was effective until about two years after we pull out of Iraq and the Iraqis have to solve their own problems. That is still our objective isn't it? We want them to maintain a stable democratic nation without an ongoing civil war between the various factions.

 

Based on the faulty intelligence of WMD, yes, it was wrong to take Sadaam out. He may have been a menace but Iraq was stable and we spent $10 Billion less per month. Keep in mind, another Sadaam is on the way and we can't stop it.

 

But there will be a civil war whether we leave tomorrow or 5 years from now. And we will be leaving all kinds of intelligence and equipment and munitions behind. It seems like we usually do.

 

:laugh: Of course, when you were WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, just pretend it doesn't matter that you were wrong.

Obama said, prior to the surge, he knew of no expert on the region who thought the surge would work. He wouldn't support it.

After the surge worked, Obama says it doesn't matter what he said about the surge not working, we shouldn't have been there anyway.

Now, let's see. When the bailout doesn't work and Obama is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, again, I'm sure he will come out with the same line....

"It doesn't matter what I said about needing the bailout, what matters is that we never should have had the financial crisis in the first place....it was all Bush's fault. The buck stops with Bush, not me. I'm not accountable for my bailout not working...."

We are seeing a pattern of wrongheaded thinking and avoidance of taking responsibility for actions.

peace to youraying:

 

Wrong? You just don't get it.

Sadaam had used WMD in the past. That is a fact. Sadaam claimed to have WMD at that time. He bragged about it. He threatened to use it. He played games with U.N. inspectors, making it look as if he were hiding WMD.

Every intellegence agency on the planet believed he had it. The Russians, the French, the Brits....everyone.

It would be like a man pointing an unloaded gun at a cop. Bush acted in the only responsible way he could...he took out a threat. Bush couldn't wait any longer to see if the gun was loaded.

We'll see how much talking with Iran will reduce the threat, since the radicals have already stated they view Obama's stance of engagement as a sign of weakness.

peace to youraying:

 

True, he didn't support the surge and was one of few who didn't vote for the war.

No one bragged or mentioned the success of the surge until AFTER.

You guys on the right wouldn't let him get away with this but it is funny. I think he is clear that his whole political future is based on these plans working. There is no hiding or denying this one. :thumbsup:

 

It's good to see you admit he was wrong. I wish Obama had the same kind of character to admit his mistakes.

Because Republicans wanted to win the war, not score political points with the lives of our men and women hanging in the balance, which is exactly what the democrats (including Obama) was trying to do.

I think you are underestimating the audacity of Obama and his fellow democrats. They will blame Bush for their failture. It is their only option to retain power. And they have been very successful so far, with the help of the liberal media.

peace to youraying:

 

Don't need to take my word, maybe Ari Fleischer who was the Bush White House press secretary might be more believable to you.

http://www.care2.com/news/member/434996229/1055390

And in case you don't believe that site, you can hear it from the horses mouth... Skip to 2:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_Q_7J_db8s

 

Ouch! That must hurt, right JD?

 

No, but that is not why we are there. That war was fought and over with by the first Bush.

 

No. All it did was move the problem to Afghanistan or wherever.

 

Re-read what I posted. I didn't say he had WMD, I said he claimed he had WMD. Everyone else in the world believed he had WMD.

That is why Bush couldn't take the chance.

peace to youraying: