3 Surprises Awaiting Obama in Iraq

Townhall.com ^ | June 3, 2008 | Chuck Norris

[ASA Vet]

Hey Chuck, speaking of doofus’s how's Huckster doing?

[Miss Didi]

RUSH: Obama. We were talking about Iraq and the surge, and "it doesn't work," and my brilliant prognostication of a year ago in which I asked: What happens if this all turns around? Do you realize how they've pigeonholed themselves? And after all, folks, we're talking about the United States Military which does not lose (unless the Democrats are in charge) and the Democrats tried to secure defeat but they couldn't, because on this George W. Bush hung tough. Last Friday on PMSNBC (otherwise known as DNCTV) Morning Joe, Obama campaign strategerist David Axelrod was asked by Mike Barnicle, "Do you know whether Senator Obama thinks there's been progress made in Iraq?"

AXELROD: I -- think w-w-what he's -- what he's said is that there's been, uh... I mean he never disputed the fact that if you throw a -- a surge of American soldiers in an area that you can, uh, make a difference.

RUSH: Really? "He never disputed the fact" never? "that if you throw a surge of American soldiers in an area that you can make a difference?" Let's go back to January 14th of 2007, about a year and a half ago, Senator Barack Obama is the guest and says this about more troops in Iraq.

OBAMA: We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality, uh, we can send 15,000 more troop; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. Uh, I don't know any, uh, expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to, uh, privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

RUSH: He's an idiot. He is a lying idiot! He says he can't find a general who will tell him it worked? Have you ever heard of David Petraeus, who is a general? It is working. A year and a half ago, he is dead wrong. He doesn't know what he's talking about. When he's put on the spot like this, and he doesn't have an answer prewritten that he has mermaid, he is wandering aimlessly in search of a thought. Axelrod said, "Well, of course going to throw soldiers at something, it's going to work." No! Just the opposite. Obama, in his own words: the surge is impossible. We will hold onto this bite, and we will continue to play it at the appropriate strategic times to clearly illustrate: this man knows not at all from what he is saying.

[Kaslin]

I have no idea why you are bringing Huckabee up? Is it because you read the Author’s name but not the editorial? Otherwise you would have noticed that it is about Obama

[Barnyard]

Great post!!

[ASA Vet]

Sorry you have no idea.
B. Hussein appears to have the same affliction.

[tm61]

waiting on the dims to tell the truth and give credit to the US military? hmmmm.

since the demonrats can credit the iranians for the success of the surge, I wont hold my breath waiting for obama to realize, and publicaly speak on the turnaround in Iraq.

his speechwriters will spin it, and if (God save us) he gets in the Whitehouse, he’ll find a way to lose it and the media will pile on as usual, and tell us it was a lost cause.

[Miss Didi]

Thanks...Rush was on fire yesterday.

[gov_bean_ counter]

Better title...

Three Things That Won't Matter to Obama

[Ronin]

If Obama goes to Iraq and learns the truth, he’s liable to run home and climb into his attic for six months.

[CharacterCounts]

Obama will not be surprised - even a little. He already is well aware of everything stated in he article.

He will never admit it of course, because to do so will cost him his base.

Obama is perfectly willing to sacrifice our troop for his political gain.

[libertylover]

I hope the soldiers find little ways to show Obama and the press they don’t want him as their Commander In Chief.

Joke: Chelsea Clinton went to Iraq and asked some of the troops what scared them. They said, “The three things that scare us most are: Osama, yo Mama, and Obama.”

[gov_bean_ counter]

The soldiers have no choice but to be respectful to Sen. Obama. The problem is he is such a whiner I think he will report anything he perceives as “disrespect” to the soldier's CO.

[holden]

Likely even more profound changes may have to occur to the Democrat party to fully absorb the difference between reality and their skewed attempt to push their false history and malevolent wishes about outcomes with Iraq and the GWOT, inasmuch as they could be made to reflect negatively onto the Republicans.

With Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq no longer being state sponsors of terror, that Iran and Syria are rightfully next to "go" can't help but cast Pelosi and Hoyer's (and Kerry's) naive traitorous forays into the opposition's "foreign policy" in the worst possible light.

Instead of letting those chickens come home to roost, count on the Democrats continuing to lie and spin, if now only to attempt to mitigate the damage. Their miscalculations will probably only make their fall all the more cataclysmic.

Obama, if he's their nominee, is sure to take a big part of the hit.

Since it would seem the Dhimmicrats are now firmly resolved to keep any other queen bees out of the top slots (as would the voters), the Redenbacher heirs can sleep comfortably.

The Republican presummptive nominee also has some reality hits to absorb, however, and the vacuums left by Dhimmi-demise will only hasten McLame's having to eat crow concerning Conservative issues, to wit, CFR, illegal immigration, global warming, etc., and that basically, conservativism has the country's best answers for our futures.

Weighing all the factors involved, there seems to be an unbelievably high probability for either or both major parties not to have the current presumptive nominees actually be their respective standard bearer on November 4.

Unfortunately, the resolutions for Iran and Syria are less likely to be hastened by the actions of those respective state terrorists as they pray for a Democrat victory. That President Bush be the catalyst to resolve their situations would be our current best option, though that is also currently unlikely.

Go ahead, Ahmajihadinutjob, make our year!

As the Dhimmis head as lemmings for their cliff, it would seem some person or group is cashing their chips from a very big game to finance Obama's election. In some sense, we should all be appalled at the likely criminality of that. Will our CFR-crippled legal system ever be able to make any such criminals pay for their attempted coup d'etat?

OTOH, perhaps we can appreciate that all that money is apparently going to stunning waste into an abyss. It is unfortunate that the amounts required merely to finance a presidential election wouldn't be enough to take down a Rockefeller or Kennedy family fortune. God must truly be in charge when one considers by comparison how little has had to be spent on the Republican side to maintain a winning trajectory. Even as unlovable a candidate as Juan is able to keep up with it, it appears.

It is to marvel!

HF

[aruanan]

Even if Obama goes to Iraq, he’ll return saying that he had been taken only to a very select few spots that had been pacified and cleaned up for his impending trip and that things are, in reality, worse than ever.

[holden]

an answer prewritten that he has mermaid

Mermaid? I think the automated recognizer should have rendered that "memorized."

HF

[WellyP]

I want to wee a photo of Obambi face when the first firecrcker goes off!

[SMARTY]

“...if he just opens his eyes”.

His eyes are open, but his blinders are on.

[Dilbert56]

One general who went on to become President was U.S. Grant. His nickname was "Unconditional Surrender" Grant. Now we have another Presidential candidate who insists on "unconditional surrender", ours. He wants us to surrender, unconditionally.

No matter the progress, the conditions on the ground or the outlook, Obama wants to surrender. If Obama wins we'll know what kind of trajectory our country is on.

[Miss Didi]

Sometimes the transcripts have errors...I hadn’t noticed. ;)