When the Washington Post highlights hypocrisy, you know it must be bad. The post aimed its sight on Obama this morning and his blatant hypocrisy that aren’t yet apparent to tens of thousands of voters in Iowa and New Hampshire.
The Washington Post says “it’s indisputable that the surge has drastically reduced violence…a reasonable response to these facts might involve acknowledgement of the remarkable military progress” in an op-ed titled “Why do the Democratic Candidates Refuse to Acknowledge Progress in Iraq?” Highlighted in the article are the facts that Obama introduced legislation to reverse the surge, and introduced plans that would have had all the troops home by this March. Obama also promises he never would have voted for the war. This time last year he said: “I don’t think 15,000 or 20,000 troops more is going to make a difference in Iraq or Baghdad.”
So what did happen in Iraq, Senator?
Mr. Obama did acknowledge the reduction of some violence in Iraq, but said that he predicted adding troops would have that effect. Previously he said that the Democrat takeover of Congress contributed to the reduction in violence, because the Sunni’s realized the US troops might leave.
To review, according to the junior Senator from Illinois, the success in Iraq is due to the addition of troops he said wouldn’t make a difference, and because the democrats threatened to take troops away.
Mr. Obama is at least consistent on one issue, he still wants to surrender as quickly as possible, despite the success the rest of the world sees.