Wash. Times' Curl misrepresented Obama's NY Times op-ed
SUMMARY: The Washington Times' Joseph Curl suggested that Sen. Barack Obama's acknowledgement in a New York Times op-ed that "new tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda -- greatly weakening its effectiveness" represented a departure from Obama's opposition to President Bush's troop surge policy. But Curl did not note that Obama also wrote that "the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true."
In a July 15 Washington Times article headlined "Shift on war hits Obama's liberal base," Joseph Curl misrepresented what Sen. Barack Obama wrote in his July 14 New York Times op-ed. Curl suggested that Obama's statement in the op-ed that "new tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda -- greatly weakening its effectiveness" represented a departure from Obama's opposition to President Bush's troop surge policy. But Curl did not note the next sentence of Obama's op-ed, which belied that suggestion; Obama wrote that "the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true."
Curl wrote: "In his Times op-ed, Mr. Obama wrote that with the surge, 'new tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda -- greatly weakening its effectiveness.' But the senator voted against the surge, and on the day it was announced he predicted it would fail." But Curl did not include Obama's next sentence:
But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we've spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq's leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.
From Curl's July 15 Washington Times article:
Mr. Obama also shifted his stance on the "surge" -- President Bush's decision to send about 20,000 additional combat troops into Iraq at the height of rising violence last year, a move even some top Democrats acknowledge has succeeded.
In his Times op-ed, Mr. Obama wrote that with the surge, "new tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda -- greatly weakening its effectiveness." But the senator voted against the surge, and on the day it was announced he predicted it would fail.
From Obama's July 14 New York Times op-ed:
In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda -- greatly weakening its effectiveness.
But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we've spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq's leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.
"But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we've spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq's leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge."
--Barack Obama
No surprise, but Obama has hit the nail on the head, again.
P.S. Wouldn't it be nice to have a president who can write as well as he can speak?
Yep. Or one who knows when a war is won, at least proportionate to his self-proclaimed ability to "win wars." Now is the time to declare "Mission Accopmlished" and Johnny Mac is still talking about winning the war over the next several years. HEY NUMB-NUTS! WE'VE WON. At least twcie now, if not three times, by my count. LET'S GO HOME FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!
what is this bozo talking about. the iraqi government has accomplished almost all of thelegislative benchmarks set by congress the the administration.
this fool is about to make a trip to the region, but has already made up his mind as to what to do, without having spoken to commanders in the field. why bother going, you idiot.
Sands, exactly how many of the 18 benchmarks have been met...not "progress" but actually met? The most important piece of legislation, the Iraq hydrocarbon law, has not been passed...as I am sure you must know.
What were his former positions?
........................................................ <the sound of silence>
PS: Don't expect a reply until Sean Hannity comes up with one.
Your response doesn't match reality. In the past, he said the surge has not worked and he maintains the surge has not worked. He called for a sixteen month withdrawal plan in the past and he still maintains his sixteen month withdrawal plan. You guys on the far right are so exited he said the surge has produced some things other than its goals. When you don't meet your goals, it's called a failure or do you guys call it something else?
notice to irony, the surge is over.
gosh you are dumb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080716/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq
What was that...? The Iraq hydrocarbon law, which President Bush regards as a major necessity for progress in Iraq, has NOT been passed. And aren't the Kurds in the North independtly cutting oil deals? Hmmm...Sands, don't you read?
Oh, BTW, exactly how many of the Iraq benchmarks have been met? I didn't catch your answer. Maybe you were too busy celebrating the success of THE SURGE!
I saw that clip as well - what a joke. I almost expected the crowd to spontaneously chant USA! USA! As the greatest and most powerful nation on earth (as the righties keep reminding us ad nauseum), we should NEVER have to go to war unless attacked. I want a president who will keep us OUT of conflicts.
do you think no mistakes were ever made in the big one? they are legion. don't look for perfection in foreign policy or war, you will never find it. but with you guys if there's a mistake you want to throw the whole thing out and shoot whoever was in charge.
Typical loony right wing Republican response...simply because you can't win an argument on its merits. You should read more, Sands..then perhaps you'll have a better grasp of the facts instead of the right wing propaganda your side loves so much.
Here we go, the false comparisons to WWII. In WWII, we were fighting against armies that were (at least initially) superior to ours, and with technology being primitive, more mistakes were apt to be made without modern communications/weapons.
In Iraq we had the vastly superior forces. We were told how short the war was going to be. How the oil profits would pay for it. And everyone that said anything against the party line of this regime was marginalized, called un-American, or forced into early retirement. (or even outed, as in Plame).
The more I think about it, this was a war for 2 things: oil for Cheney and his cronies, and for W's f-ed up try to avenge the assassination attempt on H.W.
the mistakes i was referring had nothing to do with technology. they were failures of military intelligence and leadership. the slog up the italian peninsula, that was a problem of leadership under clark. the hurtgen forest that chewed up men was ordered by bradley who never visited the place. the battle of peleliu that decimated the old breed was to provide flank protection for macarthur in his attack on leyte gulf, but was not needed, and if we were going to drop the bomb, why did wehave to invade okinawa at the cost of thousands of lives. the battle of the bulge was occasioned by failures in intelligence. the soldiers there did not even have cold weather gear because it was assumed the war was pretty much over and supplies were not sent.
i could go on and on. but you should get the point. nothing is perfect
I don't need a history lesson on the blunders of WWII, so save your fingers. Times have changed. You're mindset apparently has not.
Why do you embrace incompetence so much?
Why didn't we simply assissinate Saddam?
POV,
He HAS to in order to have any chance in the general election. You can make all the promises to the far left, especially if that is where your ideals lay, but you have to move to the right to win. With no principles in place that remain certain no matter what the political winds, what you get in governing is the kind of reactionary presidencies that both Clinton (remember welfare reform and agreement to the Contract with America's lowering tax rates) and Carter (Remember gas rationing's odd/even days and America's subjugation to USSR) offered instead of something that spoke of the exceptionalism of America and its ideals promoting individual freedoms.
Vote for Change, because Obama probably will!!
steely,
So sorry to have upset your tum-tum. ;(
liberalmindset,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/opinion/04fri1.html
Gotta hate it when this happens (again).
LOONTZ,
Nothing........ that was the point!
EWESTON,
Stop making sense....... it's so un-George Bush's America.... sheesh