| CBS News | 0 | |
| WaPo | 0 | |
| Zogby | North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan Trails in Potential 2010 Senate Match-up |
0 |
| SF Chron | 0 | |
| KDVR | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whopper of the week: Joe Biden takes credit for successes in Iraq
Here’s the video from Friday night:
Relevant part of the transcript:
“The fact of the matter is, the only thing succeeding in Iraq right now is the plan that Barack and I talked about that Petraeus is implementing … giving local control in the very areas with a limited central government.”
Ummm … no. Jeff Emanuel unloads:
For example, I suppose we are now expected to believe that when Biden said, “The president and others who support the surge have it exactly backwards,” in December 2006, he secretly meant, “Go through with the surge, Gen. Petraeus — I believe in you!”
Or, when Biden was pushing for Iraq to be divided into into three ethnically-homogeneous, unsustainable “states,” then abandoned, he was actually working behind the scenes with the freshman Senator from Illinois and General Petraeus to craft a plan to make Iraq more unified and sustainable.
We are likewise expected to believe that, when Barack Obama sponsored legislation that would have withdrawn U.S. troops from that country beginning last year — at the most sensitive point to date in the entire conflict — with a full retreat having been completed by this past March, thereby rendering every single achievement made possible by the ‘Surge,’ from the rising up of Concerned Local Citizens, to the driving out of al Qaeda in Iraq, to the quelling of sectarian violence, to the growing political reconciliation that made possible legislation passed this week setting the stage for provincial elections in that country, entirely null and void, he was actually laying the ground work for success there. Good thing General Petraeus was somehow in on the secret there, and understood that all of Obama’s posturing was actually cover for Petraeus to do what he has done to date in Iraq.
Or not. What this actually was, was simply this: perhaps the most brazen engagement in revisionist history — if not the most brazen outright lie — ever to leave the lips of a man who is known for his embellishments.
Not only that, but he’s no better than his running mate on this front, considering Barack Obama himself said back in January that “Democrats” were responsible for the successes we’d seen in Iraq:
Now, I had no doubt — and I said at the time, when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence. But understand, we started in 2006 with intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government. We saw a spike in the violence, the surge reduced that violence, and we now are, two years later, back where we started two years ago. We have gone full circle at enormous cost to the American people.
What we have to do is to begin a phased redeployment to send a clear signal to the Iraqi government that we are not going to be there in perpetuity. Now, it will — we should be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I welcome the genuine reductions of violence that have taken place, although I would point out that much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province — Sunni tribes — who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shi’as. We should start negotiating now. That’s how you change behavior.
And let’s not forget how back in May Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave credit, in part, to the “goodwill” of … the Iranians:
Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space, a time for the political change to occur to accomplish the reconciliation. That didn’t happen. Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn’t accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians.
I wish I could say it’s hard to believe Biden, Obama, and Pelosi would say such things, but it’s really not shocking at all. Disgusting, yes, but not shocking. As Emanuel noted, Joe Biden and Barack Obama both just want people to forget their opposition to the surge (Biden voted for the war while Obama, not in the Senate yet, opposed it – but Biden and Obama both voted against the surge) and their repeated criticisms of the Bush administration’s implementation of the surge. Not only that, but they don’t want people to remember how reluctant they’ve both been to praise the successes that have come from the surge – to the point that Barack Obama has said that if he had it to do all over again knowing what he knows now that he still would have voted against the surge.
Where the hell are the MSM “Fact Checkers” who are supposedly trying so hard to keep the politicos honest? Still trying to dig up information on Gov. Palin’s time as mayor in Wasilla, and perhaps questioning former ‘nam POWs about McCain’s time in captivity in an effort to try and find “discrepancies” in his story.
Infuriating.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
7 Responses to “Whopper of the week: Joe Biden takes credit for successes in Iraq”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
You’re right. The truly sick part of this is not the claim itself –though that’s outrageous enough– but the near-certainty that the MSM won’t call them on the carpet about this.
What you do is write a total satirical story with the headline: “Obama and Biden both agree that the Surge worked to perfection”. Then go ahead and post the story above.
If Biden is going to be this stupid, let the media hear it as satire and make sure Sarah Palin has this ammo in the upcoming debate.
Can you say: “Delusional” ?
I thought stealing credit for other people’s work was Biden’s stock-in-trade.
Sadly, people have confused hindsight with judgment. Some people oppose war unconditionally, Quakers come to mind. Some see war as a last resort. Some see war as a means to advance a political agenda.
Has anyone asked Obama his position on the “Bush Doctrine” or whatever one wants to call the right of self defense these days? Prior to 911, collectively as a nation we would sift through the rubble after an attack and identify the culprits. We could bring our outrage to the United Nations and pass resolutions. News flash for some- all 19 directly responsible for the 9-11 attacks are dead.
After the attack there were some who wanted to continue this approach . Perhaps they would go into the caves with lawyers and delegations to sit down and negotiate with the terrorists.
Some, conceivably a sizable majority, wanted to be protected BEFORE any blast took additional lives. Our leaders, acting on the available intelligence, made a political decision to protect American lives by bringing the conflict closer to the terrorist bases. That strategy was voted by congress and carried out by our military at great risk to themselves. As the intelligence was less than perfect, some chose to use hindsight to question the value of the strategy. People who voted to protect American lives now claim they were mislead by the intelligence that was available at the time. They act as if they knew all along that taking the war to the enemy was a bad choice. But they offer no reasonable alternative.
The choice at the time was to continue business as usual or take on the terrorists in their home territory. As the terrorists were not an identifiable state, another choice had to be made and nations were expected to uphold international law and arrest terrorists or face the consequences. Those who harbored terrorists, or supported them would be at risk. Against that background, our leaders chose to take the fight to the desert where our military had the best chance to survive, rather than to the caves and mountains that gave a distinct advantage to the terrorists. Even those who oppose the war recognize there has not been additional attacks on American soil.
If someone claims he/ she would act upon actionable intelligence, the next question would be the standard to attach to the intelligence. Is it ” reasonable cause to believe ( the standard used by police in this country?) or “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” ( the standard by juries)? That is a question of judgment!
Well said, omapian.
This story really ticks me off because it hits close to home for me. Biden is such a scumbag. I’ve tried to stay respectful when speaking of all candidates, but this is too much. This is not a “stretching” of the truth or an oversight. This is a flat out LIE. Once again, I notice nothing on the CNN Political Ticker about Joe being a filthy LIAR!
If Barry O. had his way, Saddam would still be skirting U.N. “sanctions” making millions for oil, and it would just be a matter of time before he got around the sanctions to continue his WMD program. Saddam would still be financing terror if these two idiots were in charge. Oh, wait, that’s right, Biden was practically a cheerleader for the war when it was in his best interest. It wasn’t until things got tough that the dems began deserting.
However, if Biden did have his way we would have bailed out on Iraq back in 2004 at the height of the violence. Iraq would have become an absolute disaster with hundreds of thousands of people dying and Al Qaeda setting up a power base in Baghdad.
Or Biden’s brilliant plan of carving up Iraq into three separate “states”. If this is the kind of foreign policy experience that Biden brings to the table then….may I be excused from the table please????
Ah, good ol’ Joe Biden, dedicated to proving Hillary would have been the better choice….
Unbelievable.
Rovin, do you know anyone who writes for the Onion? I think you’ve got a great idea there![:-\](http://sistertoldjah.com/smilies/yahoo_question.gif ":-\")
”
– kd