What A Difference A 'Surge' Makes

The ‘surge’ has not only made a difference for the citizens of Iraq, particularly in greater Baghdad, but it’s also apparently made a difference for the prospective Democratic candidates for President here at home. While the dem candidates still won’t admit publicly the extraordinary success the surge of American troops into Iraq has been, the way in which Hillary and Barack answered Tim Russert’s question of, ‘Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?’ in Wednesday’s MSNBC sponsored debate should be proof enough of the success of the surge even for the casual political observer.

Their answers were somewhat surprising to me given their endless anti-war rhetoric and attempted legislative action for at least the last year.

‘I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there. What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office, which it appears there may be unless we can get some of our Republican colleagues to change their mind and cut off funding without a timetable, if there's no timetable, then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out.’

‘Well, Tim, it is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term. But I agree with Barack. It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting. You know, we do not know, walking into the White House in January 2009, what we're going to find. What is the state of planning for withdrawal? That's why last spring I began pressing the Pentagon to be very clear about whether or not they were planning to bring our troops out. And what I found was that they weren't doing the kind of planning that is necessary, and we've been pushing them very hard to do so. You know, with respect to the question, though, about the Democrats taking control of the Congress, I think the Democrats have pushed extremely hard to change this president's course in Iraq. Today I joined with many of my colleagues in voting for Senator Biden's plan, slightly different than he'd been presenting it, but still the basic structure was to move toward what is a de facto partition if the Iraqi people and government so choose. The Democrats keep voting for what we believe would be a better course. Unfortunately as you know so well, the Democrats don't have the majority in the Senate to be able to get past that 60-vote blockade that the Republicans can still put up. But I think every one of us who is still in the Senate -- Senator Biden, Senator Dodd, Senator Obama and myself -- we are trying every single day. And of course, Congressman Kucinich is in the House. But I think it is fair to say that the president has made it clear. He intends to have about 100,000 or so troops when he leaves office -- the height of irresponsibility, that he would leave this war to his successor. I will immediately move to begin bringing our troops home when I am inaugurated.’

Now for the record Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd continued to express their intentions to bring the troops home immediately if elected despite any consequences on the ground, John Edwards leaned in that direction saying he would immediately cut the troop numbers in half but he wouldn‘t rule out keeping some troops there. It will be interesting to see if Dodd, Richardson, or Edwards gains any traction in polls of registered democrats but at this point the news is clearly the Clinton and Barack flip-flop.

A fairly dramatic flip-flop on arguably the most important issue facing America in the run up to the 2008 election. And while Obama and Clinton still obviously didn’t commit to any real position they certainly have softened their anti-war stance in a relatively short period of time. Consider the June 3 CNN sponsored Dem presidential debate, less than four months ago, when asked by Wolf Blitzer the seemingly open-ended and unrelated question of:

HILLARY: Well, if President Bush has not ended the war in Iraq, to bring our troops home. That would be the very first thing that I would do.

While he added the caveat ‘assuming nothing has changed’ it’s clear both he and Hillary were on the same page. To add further context to the drastic change of opinion by Hillary and Barack consider this exchange earlier in that same June 3rd debate.

WOLF BLITZER: Senator Clinton, you voted in favor of every funding for the US troops since the start of the war until now. And some are accusing you and some others of playing politics with the lives of the troops. What is your response?

HILLARY: Unfortunately, we don’t have a President who is willing to change course. And I think it was time to say enough is enough. I thought the best way to support our troops was to try to send a very strong message that they should begin to come home. That is the best way to support them. And I thought that vote was an opportunity to do so. Everybody on this stage, we are all united, Wolf. We all believe that we need to try to end this war. In two nights you’re going to have the Republican candidates here. They all support the war. They all support the president. They all supported escalation. Each of us is trying in our own way to bring the war to an end.

WOLF BLITZER: Sen. Obama, you did the same thing. Since you came into the Senate you voted for the funding for the troops for this war until now. What’s your answer?

BARACK: To some degree, this was a vote that had to do with how we feel about a continuation of a plan that has not worked. The President has now announced - just the other day, he said that this was like Korea. Keep in mind we’ve been there six decades in the Korean Peninsula. And the best way for us to support the troops is to ensure that we are not continuing to try to impose a military solution on what is essentially a political problem in Iraq. And that’s why I put forward a bill that would begin a phased redeployment and have all our troops out by March 31st of next year(2008).

So while early June had both Hillary and Barack not only stating their intent to withdraw all troops before the end of their first 100 days in office, they were at the same time trying to get the troops out even earlier(by March 2008) through legislative action. And now they are on record as saying they think the troops will be in Iraq at least until the end of 2012, the end of their prospective first term. And while they have been softening their stance on a complete troop withdrawal, particularly Hillary, in the last few weeks, both Hillary and Barack have seemingly completed an almost total turnabout in less than four months.

Now if you’re like me you might be asking yourself why are the dem presidential candidates making these drastic changes of opinion on the war. To the astute observer the answer is clear, the ‘surge’ is working and there is obvious reason for optimism in Iraq’s future. The change in direction that President Bush signed off on in January, the one Hillary said didn’t happen, is bearing fruit. General Petraeus and our amazing troops have in the last six months succeeded beyond any expectations in the face of not only insurgent attacks but also in the face of a democrat controlled Congress that has repeatedly sought to cut them off at the knees. Barack and Hillary, by their own words, admit to leading that failed charge.

You might also be wondering as I have why the dem candidates could have shown such a lack of optimism let alone foresight even a couple short months ago. If so you might also consider asking whether their flip-flop on Iraq was due to the realization that the ‘surge’ is working or their recognizing the American public at large is beginning to realize the hope that exists in Iraq. Did they shift because they realize our success or because the American people realize our success?

Since the dem candidates still won’t publicly admit confidence in the ‘surge’ strategy, not to mention their refusal to castigate the NYTimes and MoveOn.org for their recent ad ripping the leader of the Iraq fight, General Petraeus, it seems pretty clear the only reason they changed their minds is because they stuck their fingers in the air and felt a shift in the political winds that happened to be unfavorable to their anti-war positions. In other words, they couldn’t care less if we actually succeed in Iraq or whether Al Qaeda sets up a safe haven. All they care about is how they are perceived by the sheeple.

In a fair world such actions, determining war policy based on public opinion polls, should disqualify them as possible presidential contenders but I won’t hold my breath.

God bless President Bush for continuing the fight despite the polls, and maintaining the moxie necessary to make an unpopular change in strategy in order to win instead of becoming overly susceptible to changes in the political tides. God bless our troops for performing admirably in the face of evil even when some of their own representatives in Congress are still practically wishing for their failure.

Great Sight FM!

I posted another HAT TIP to Mr. L. also concerning the Opinion Journal Piece that Rush included in his Friday Show .

Figured THIS same quote from that article says it all too!

"....Yet despite the undeniable successes the new strategy has achieved ...many in Congress are still pushing to change the mission of U.S. forces back to a ...strategy that has consistently failed in Iraq..."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1903931/posts " Why We're Winning the War in Iraq "----------http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010665

And

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125109.member.html

Battered Liberals Despondent Over Democrat Abandonment on Iraq

As you said it True: talking to Freepers about ALL matters is like singing to the choir-but then again- we all would not be as educated & intellectual concerning such matters if we all Didn't Come to Free republic in the First place to GET all this Great Info!

Yes, and I understand hildabeast was livid at Russett for the question/s. The tide is changing...we are winning and the dems must be part of the winning side. No matter how wild, ugly, hateful, and hate filled the far left is acting...they’re small numbers compared to what will lead them to victory.

Did you HEAR Russet’s “Set Up “ Of the Schrillary!!??

MAN! it was a thing of Beauty! and when after he was finished setting her up and came out with,

“..well Mrs. Clinton-the “Person” you just disagreed with happened to be the Stand that a President Bill Clinton had when he was Presdient!—NOW WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY!..”

Classic!-but WE are no where even CLOSE to being “out of the woods” yet!

Remember there IS one “small” instance that Has and can still continue to “come Up”-and That is the MEDIA-Even though it is 99% Supportive OF the DEms and OF the Left STILL knows the $$$$ Side of “Selling Papers” and geting advertisers!

Not that they WILL purposely take a Conservatives “Side” In an Issue! BUT!

They WILL take the side that lines their own posckets with revenue!

Take in point the Media Jumping on Clintons Scandal with Monica! Their Front Page lines were
“ CLINTON LIES ON STAND! “

Mine you you will ONLY find them showing a Light on Dems AFTER the cat is out of the bag-and they know EVERYONE ELSE
(The Public) would have eventually found out anyhow- but it can happen-just has to be BIG! Like KERRY’s Story too of HIS Lies!-some of them DID come out in the Press-even though they LOVED Kerry!

(And I know..I know..they will STILL Only do it in a SUPPORTIVE/ Apologetic matter too! But even then-it Serves OUR Purpose that small small Truth DOES get out!)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.