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.