War Fraud

Here is the phony plan to end the war in Iraq that Barack used to trick the educated class into voting for him, instead of Hillary, as the anti-war candidate.

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.*

This unqualified commitment, as impossible and disingenuous as it is, remains on his website today. At the same time, he continues to back away from it on the campaign trail (as he must - it is irresponsible and can't be done), and to lay the groundwork for its revision, even while getting testy over any suggestion that he would ever do such a thing.

Just in case we didn't get it the first time, his plan, still lacking any escape clauses, is repeated a few paragraphs later.

Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year.

Here's what the faux anti-war candidate said today at a press conference regarding speculation that he will soon be coming up with a new plan for Iraq, one that is suitable for a general election.

“You know these critics haven’t based their comments on anything that Ive said or anything that my campaign has said. Its pure speculation. Were planning to visit Iraq. I’m gonna do a thorough assessment when I’m there. I have been consistent through out this process that I believe the war in Iraq was a mistake.

That's what Woodward and Bernstein used to call a non-denial denial. Make lots of noise, but don't contradict directly the assumption. Except, Barack uses language that creates the definite impression that the new plan for Iraq will arrive after his visit there this summer even while demeaning those who are suggesting that he would do such a thing! What a slippery character - here's more of his nonsense.

"...my position has not changed, but keep in mind what that original position was. I have always said that I will listen to commanders on the ground;

I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability.

That assessment has not changed and when I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure Ill have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”

He did always say that he would listen to the commanders on the ground, but he never made his Iraq policy subsidiary to that. This was a separate point, made to highlight that he would manage the war differently than the current administration. His policy, as quoted from his website, makes no exceptions for commanders on the ground. He is inserting it retroactively in order to lay the groundwork for a flip.

Of course, this is no surprise. He would get destroyed in the general election if he stuck with his current plan. Liberals may be dumb enough to fall for it, but the bitter crowd would have run him out of town.

I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability.

That assessment has not changed and when I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure Ill have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”

So now he has two excuses for why his unequivocal policy on the website will be taken down in August. Why doesn't he just admit it now? Lying is just the more natural thing to do, it seems.

And, remarkably, the educated class that believes in Barack as the Savior, hasn't noticed that he is without a plan for ending the war in Iraq, and has taken no political risk, ever, in order to move the policy of this country toward that end.

They believe, without checking, misrepresentations like these on his website.

Judgment You Can Trust

As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, (LIE - according to various news sources, Barack didn't announce his candidacy for the U.S. Senate until January of 2003.) and warned of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” Obama has been a consistent (he is now being inconsistent), principled (he is now being unprincipled, as outlined above) and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq (vocal, yes, but he's shown no leadership on the issue).

• In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail; (WOW!)
  
• In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;(WOW!)
• In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors;(WOW - he actually called for something? Is this like when the weatherman "is calling for rain tomorrow?")
  
• In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008. (WOW! He actually introduced legislation? Where did he ever find the time?)
  
• In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president. (A plan which is completely ridiculous and which he knew would never be implemented.)

There you have it - in those brief sentences, the entire record of leadership offered by Barack Obama on ending the war in Iraq. He spoke out. He introduced legislation. And he offered a pander plan for withdrawing our troops and losing the war. Very impressive.

* It is worth noting that Barack's phony plan wasn't even his, it was stolen from a group called the Center for a New American Strategy - but not before it was stripped down and made even more unworkable.

Moving something like 160,000 troops and their equipment out of Iraq between now and January 2009 would not be "strategic" or "phased." It would be a rush for the exit. Even the CNAS report proposed removing only 100,000 soldiers over a longer period, and even that effort would have been highly problematic.

The notion of removing troops from safe areas first and hotspots later also sounds reasonable, but isn't. American forces move into and out of Iraq by brigade. But brigades in Iraq are not deployed all together--they normally have battalions and even companies in various, sometimes widely dispersed, areas.

In the real world, withdrawing a brigade requires moving its subordinate units back to bases, reassembling them into the brigade, and then moving it out of the country--along the single road that serves as our principal line of supply from Kuwait.

The process of moving one-to-two brigades per month would not permit such an orderly and carefully calibrated withdrawal as Obama pictures. It would be simple cut-and-run, about as fast a withdrawal as it would be possible for the U.S. to undertake.