Hope and Change: Top Obama Strategist Changes Obama's Previous Position on the Surge, and Hopes You Won't Notice
They do that a lot.
Old position: The surge won't work
New (old) position: The surge may or may not work, I just meant it wouldn't work-work, you know, how you can like a person but not like-like that person, you know?
More from Allah, including a quote from Col. McMaster on the political progress the military progress has created.
Judgment. Bear in mind, Obama never actually analyzed the surge's chances of working. It was pure politics that drove him to declare it was futile to attempt the surge, because only that predicate -- futility -- justifies his policy of Unconditional Surrender (surrender in the wrong direction, of course).
If there were any hope of success in Iraq, he couldn't argue that we must Unconditionally Surrender post-haste no matter what the circumstances. So pure political expediency and not his vaunted "judgment" led him to declare defeat before our troops had their say about it.
And now he looks somewhat, shall we say, inexperienced and reckless for having done so.
So the record must therefore change.
He always believed the surge could work, apparently. And so he chose to oppose a chance at victory for... um, what reason now?
Obama lied, people died.
They said there was no hope of military progress.
But there was military progress. So they claimed that military progress was irrelevant (in a war -- ?), and what they always meant was there was no hope of political progress, which is the only thing that matters (again -- in a war -- ?).
Now there is political progress emerging, quite predictably, from military progress.
There next claim will be that military and political progress are irrelevant, but what really counts is cinematic progress, so if the Baghdad film community doesn't pony up an Arabic language Raging Bull or at least a Bull Durham, the situation is hopeless.
Sweeeeeet! Another great proposal from a Barack Hussein Obama adviser -- I expect Obama will soon express his "disappointment" with this adviser, too, and we'll soon be told he was merely an "unofficial adviser" Obama barely even met.
The idea? Well, gee -- if you want to get Iran to give up its nukes, shouldn't we start by demanding that Israel give up its nukes first?
Hey, why not give up our own, too? I'm sure we'll see some of that vaunted "goodwill of the Iranians" shortly thereafter.
The naivete here is astounding.
They're really not interested in disarming our enemies. They're interested only in disarming the real enemies, Israel and the United States.
posted by Ace
ace.mu.nu |
