VIDEO: Obama and Biden saying the troop surge wouldn't work. Now they take credit for its success.

They hypocrisy and judgment of this administration is staggering. This video shows them saying the troop surge in Iraq wont work, and it will make things worse. Now, just today Obama announces the end to combat operations in Iraq and takes credit for the surge. Unbelievable.

What success ?

You mean they have finally (after seven years of warfare) finally located all those weapons of mass destruction that Dubya Bush says was reason for invading Iraq in the first place?

Gosh that is really good news.
Where are all these weapons.
What are they, and when will they all be put on public display to justify the slaughter of so many people, and the destruction of an entire nation.

Originally posted by Silver Shadow
What success ?

You mean they have finally (after seven years of warfare) finally located all those weapons of mass destruction that Dubya Bush says was reason for invading Iraq in the first place?

Gosh that is really good news.
Where are all these weapons.
What are they, and when will they all be put on public display to justify the slaughter of so many people, and the destruction of an entire nation.

The surge was not to find the weapons. The surge was to successfully turn the combat missions over to Iraqi forces and get US troops out of there.

I am in no way defending Bush in this other than to say that the surge achieved its goals. Obama and Biden said it wouldn't achieve those goals and would make things worse. Now they are taking credit for it. Basically its a cheap attempt to bolster their plummeting approval numbers.

So what you are saying is, America is now no longer killing the Iraqi people, so the war is now ended.

That is true, because America is the only enemy that the Iraqi people ever had.
When you stop killing insurgents, the war will be over.

And when you pull out of Iraq, the victory will be to every single Iraqi.
There will be dancing in the streets when America leaves.

America, shamed, beaten and humiliated will be giving up and retreating out of Iraq.

And the other twenty eight nations that still have military in Iraq right now, as GUESTS of the Iraqi people, will continue what they have been doing there for seven years. That is rebuilding what America has destroyed.

The Iraqi people, backed by the military of TWENTY EIGHT NATIONS have finally beaten and broken America.

Just like Vietnam, you have finally been driven out, and peace will now finally come to Iraq.
All the world's nations will get together and try to rebuild the nation that America has destroyed.

Originally posted by Silver Shadow
So what you are saying is, America is now no longer killing the Iraqi people, so the war is now ended.

That is true, because America is the only enemy that the Iraqi people ever had.
When you stop killing insurgents, the war will be over.

And when you pull out of Iraq, the victory will be to every single Iraqi.
There will be dancing in the streets when America leaves.

America, shamed, beaten and humiliated will be giving up and retreating out of Iraq.

And the other twenty eight nations that still have military in Iraq right now, as GUESTS of the Iraqi people, will continue what they have been doing there for seven years. That is rebuilding what America has destroyed.

The Iraqi people, backed by the military of TWENTY EIGHT NATIONS have finally beaten and broken America.

Just like Vietnam, you have finally been driven out, and peace will now finally come to Iraq.
All the world's nations will get together and try to rebuild the nation that America has destroyed.

Um, no, that is not what I am saying. I am saying the surge had it goals and it achieved them. I am saying Obama and Biden opposed the surge and said those goals would not be achieved. Now that they have been proven wrong, they are trying to take credit for the surge achieving its goals. The US in no way was driven out of Iraq. The surge worked and Iraq is now dramatically more secure than it was before the surge. So much so, that the Iraqi military can now handle its own security. Its nothing like Vietname at all.

Yes the Iraqi war was tragic. Yes there were not the levels of WMD's that was expected. Yes there were many senseless deaths and travesties. But the surge had to happen to secure Iraq and dramatically reduce those types of things so foreign troops could leave the country.

This thread's point is very simple, so try to focus and not go off topic:
The surge achieved its stated goals when Bush announced it. Obama and Biden opposed it and said it wouldn't work. Now it has worked and they are trying to take credit for it. It is this hypocrisy I am trying to point out. Nothing more.

Can you be more specific and say what these goals were that the surge achieved.

I would really like to know what was the military objective of this surge, and how it really changed anything.

What is it that has now been achieved, if it is not the discovery of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

Originally posted by Silver Shadow
Can you be more specific and say what these goals were that the surge achieved.

I would really like to know what was the military objective of this surge, and how it really changed anything.

What is it that has now been achieved, if it is not the discovery of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

Sure, no problem:

In the context of the Iraq War, the surge refers to United States President George W. Bush's 2007 increase in the number of American troops in order to provide security to Baghdad and Al Anbar Province.[1] The surge had been developed under the working title "The New Way Forward" and it was announced in January 2007 by Bush during a television speech.[2][3] Bush ordered the deployment of more than 20,000 soldiers into Iraq, five additional brigades, and sent the majority of them into Baghdad.[2] He also extended the tour of most of the Army troops in country and some of the Marines already in the Anbar Province area.[2] The President described the overall objective as establishing a "...unified, democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself, and is an ally in the War on Terror."[3] The major element of the strategy was a change in focus for the US military "to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security".[2]The President stated that the surge would then provide the time and conditions conducive to reconciliation among political and ethnic factions.[3]

Link

[edit on 1-9-2010 by johnny2127]

Well if it hadn't been for numb nuts George Bush, the whole bloody thing could have been avoided.

Good! the Corporate murders surge is over in Iraq!

Now they can ship the NeoConCabal to the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague then.

Or will all of them go straight to hell?

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Well if it hadn't been for numb nuts George Bush, the whole bloody thing could have been avoided.

Again, not defending Bush or saying he was a good President. Just saying Obama and Biden opposed the surge and said it wouldn't work, and now are trying to take credit for it. Just pointing out the hypocrisy. Not saying the Iraq war was great. Just pointing out the dishonesty and lack of judgment of Obama and Biden. Pretty simple

Doesnt surprise me at all with Obama. His poll numbers are in free fall and they'll do anything to garner support. No change from Obama, just more of the BS we've come to expect from DC. I say they all should be kicked out.

Originally posted by johnny2127
Sure, no problem:

The President described the overall objective as establishing a "...unified, democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself, and is an ally in the War on Terror."[3] The major element of the strategy was a change in focus for the US military "to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security".[2]The President stated that the surge would then provide the time and conditions conducive to reconciliation among political and ethnic factions.[3]

Link

[edit on 1-9-2010 by johnny2127]

So why did all this goodness for the Iraqi people require a forceful invasion, which the Iraqis then successfully resisted for seven years.

The only requirement to clear and secure neighborhoods was to make it safe for Americans.

Don't you understand, if Chinese helicopter gunships were machine gunning Americans in America, you would be doing exactly what the Iraqi "insurgents" have been doing. The insurgents are just ordinary Iraqi Joes defending their homes, families, and country.

The military of many other nations were already there in Iraq, and are still there right now, and have never been fired upon.

Countries like Australia and Canada were there, and are still there, and have never suffered a single combat death in Iraq to this very day.

Basically America went in there guns blazing killing the ordinary civilian people, and you call it freeing Iraq from terrorists and insurgents.

There was never a security problem in Iraq until America invaded the place.

When America has left Iraq, the war will be over.

Originally posted by Silver Shadow

So why did all this goodness for the Iraqi people require a forceful invasion, which the Iraqis then successfully resisted for seven years.

The only requirement to clear and secure neighborhoods was to make it safe for Americans.

Don't you understand, if Chinese helicopter gunships were machine gunning Americans in America, you would be doing exactly what the Iraqi "insurgents" have been doing. The insurgents are just ordinary Iraqi Joes defending their homes, families, and country.

The military of many other nations were already there in Iraq, and are still there right now, and have never been fired upon.

Countries like Australia and Canada were there, and are still there, and have never suffered a single combat death in Iraq to this very day.

Basically America went in there guns blazing killing the ordinary civilian people, and you call it freeing Iraq from terrorists and insurgents.

There was never a security problem in Iraq until America invaded the place.

When America has left Iraq, the war will be over.

If you want to view those fighting against the US as freedom fighters, thats your choice. Of course you're neglecting to mention that they aren't all Iraqi, and many from neighboring countries, but that your choice also. And again, as I have said multiple times to you, I am not defending the Iraq war. You keep arguing against a point I wasn't trying to make. This is purely about the dishonesty and hypocrisy of Obama, which you will not even comment on or acknowledge. Yes, I get it, you hate the US war in Iraq. Now try commenting on the point of the thread.


[edit on 1-9-2010 by johnny2127]

reply to post by johnny2127


Obama's taking the credit for ending the war? Well he did promise to end it, but it wasn't as if Hillary or Edward were not going to do the same. Obama is wrong in arguing that Iraq is in better shape because truth is its not. The country is on the verge of a civil war. Many Iraqis are still suffering and are not much better off today than when Saddam was in power. Obama, the Dems and even the Republicans are just arguing the success of the war because they each have some stake in that 'success' and truth is, its not. $700 billion down the drain and for what?

As for the success of the surge? The surge is a word used time and time again by Iraq war and Bush supporters. It means nothing really. We sent another 20,000 troops, we spent another few billion in doing so in a war that was a complete lie to start with, and? The surge??

It is interesting how the chickenhawks and company continue to wave this surge around, as if we are going to forget that the war is just one big corporate venture, a surge which never made a damn difference to that fact. When Iraq crumbles into some state of anarchy, are you still going to wave the 'surge' around at us?

OF COURSE they are going to take credit for things they haven't done. They are stink'n politicians ... just like any other stink'n politicians.

BTW .. the war isn't over. We still have 50K troops there. It isn't over by a long shot and we won't give up our 'post' there because the whackos in Iran are just next door. We are there to stay.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Bingo!!

Notice how Obama keeps mentioning that the "Combat Mission" is now over. However, he fails to mention that the 50k troops on the ground are now an "Advisory and Assistance" force.

They can still be fired upon, IED's can still be used against them etc...

I would like Obama to give us all more details on how the rules of engagement will change for all of our troops who are still there. Perhaps our troops will have a direct line to the Red Phone to ask Obama for permission to defend themselves.

Obama was very clear to mention that he kept his campaign promise, even though a basic plan was in the works before he took office. A confident and competent LEADER gives credit where credit is due.

This sounds like Rep. Boner's argument verbatim. The thing is, where exactly is it that Obama 'takes credit' for the surge? Seems to me he's been pretty careful not to fall into the infamous 'mission accomplished' PR catastrophe of his predecessor. The goal, as you stated, of the surge was to help secure the Iraqi people and. most importantly, to get a stable Iraqi government in place. There is no stable Iraqi government in place. Not even close. Obama, like pretty much anyone with half a clue, realized that the Iraq war was a losing proposition and simply wants to cut our losses; echoing the American people's position. IMO, the Iraq war turned not on the 'surge' but when the Mahdi Army decided to take a timeout. And I'm pretty sure that position was simply purchased with cash money.

reply to post by Silver Shadow


You must be a lover of Saddam and his genocide. So where's your country headed with the suspicious way your leader was replaced recently?

Im still blown away that dumping a a bunch of troops into an area in considered a 'strategy.'

Like playing C&C and just spamming infantry over and over.

Take one idiot who didnt go with overwhelming force in the first place when there was absolutely no reason not to do so who later after many months of death decided 'gee, we should probably send in more guys' and we can PR it into a 'strategy.'

Patton would be spinning in his grave.


I set out on a cross country drive on a quarter tank of gas. Didnt get very far. I'll implement the 'surge' strategy and fill the tank at the next station I see.

If this is the kind of crap that passes as strategy is it really any wonder the globe is rotting to #? It no longer just seems like morons run everything. Morons really are running everything.

reply to post by johnny2127


Not everyone attributes the descalation of the secterian violence to the troop surge. But more to the fact that the Shia militias won the secterian conflict.

From Patrick Cokburn, an unembedded journalist throughout his time in Iraq.

The US military wants to maintain the myth that it somehow turned round the war in Iraq by means of ‘the surge’ and emerged successfully from the conflict.

This claim was always exaggerated. The insurgency against the US occupation was rooted in the Sunni Arab community and when this was defeated by Shia government and militia forces in 2006-7 the Sunni had little choice but look for an accommodation with the Americans.

The most important change in Iraq was more to do with outcome of the Shia-Sunni struggle than US military tactical innovations.

www.counterpunch.org...

[edit on 1-9-2010 by Peruvianmonk]