Judgment To Lead?

Stuttering Baracky - and he stutters a lot today - can't even exercise sound judgment with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. Asked if he knew in 2007 what he knows now, would he still have been against the surge, he answers that yes, he would.



What kind of a BS answer is that?

After stuttering for 30 seconds, he says he was correct to vote against the surge because he disagreed with the Bush Administration. That is meaningless. He came out against the surge in 2007 because he claimed it would backfire, worsening security. There is no logic whatsoever to his answer, though he tries to leave the impression that his vote was based on some higher ethical principle. This guy is the penultimate con-man.

There is much, much more.

There is an additional interview on ABC and Nightline still to come, though not yet available. There is this report in advance of the showing of the Nightline interview from Marc Ambinder blogging at the Atlantic (H/T Gateway Pundit):

Sen. Barack Obama said it was "fair" to notice that he did not anticipate that the surge of U.S. troops into Iraq would be coincident with the so-called Sunni Awakening and the decisions of Shia militias to reduce their footprints, the combination of which led to measurable declines in violence.

In an interview with ABC's Terry Moran, Obama said that he "did not anticipate, and I think that this is a fair characterization, the convergence of not only the surge but the Sunni awakening in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had had enough with Al Qaeda, in the Shii’a community the militias standing down to some degrees. So what you had is a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, I think that my assessment would have been correct."

This is a complete twisting and rewrite of history.

The Sunni Awakening Movement was well underway by September 2006 - four months before the surge was announced and Obama took his stand against it. And it was a movement that was begun by the U.S. forces soliciting a partnership. Here is a short history of the movement from the Washington Post:

In November 2005, American commanders held a breakthrough meeting with top Sunni chiefs in Ramadi, hoping to lure them away from the insurgents' fold. The sheiks responded positively, promising cooperation and men for a police force that was then virtually nonexistent.

But in January 2006 a suicide bomber attacked a police recruiting drive, killing 70 people. Insurgents killed at least four sheiks for cooperating with the Americans, and many others fled.

The killings left the effort in limbo, until a turning point; insurgents killed a prominent sheik last year and refused to let family members bury the body for four days, enraging Sunni tribesmen, said U.S. Lt. Col. Miciotto Johnson, who heads the 1st Battalion, 77th Armored Regiment and visits al-Rishawi frequently in western Ramadi.

Al-Rishawi, whose father and three brothers were killed by al-Qaida assassins, said insurgents were "killing innocent people, anyone suspected of opposing them. They brought us nothing but destruction and we finally said, enough is enough."

Al-Rishawi founded the Anbar Salvation Council in September [2006] with dozens of Sunni tribes. Many of the new newly friendly leaders are believed to have at least tacitly supported the insurgency in the past, though al-Rishawi said he never did. . . .

Read the entire article. [emphasis added]

How could Obama claim that he did not anticipate something that was already well known and in full swing by the time the surge was announced in January, 2007? And he damn well knew about by July, 2007 when he was calling for a withdraw from Iraq, explicitly saying he did not care if doing so would lead to genocide.

As to Sadr, Obama's claim is ridiculous. Sadr's forces had twice been mauled by the U.S. and when the U.S. announced the surge, Sadr's forces were dead in the cross-hairs. That was WHY Sadr ordered a pull back - to preserve his Mahdi Army against U.S. forces. Does Obama lack the judgment to see the relationship between cause and effect?

And Obama fails to even acknowledge the role Iran has played. Looking at Obama objectively, one wonders if he believes reality is whatever he wants it be.

To continue:

Moran noted that Obama had claimed that the surge "would not make a significant dent in the violence."

Responded Obama: "In the violence in Iraq overall, right. So the point that I was making at the time was that the political dynamic was the driving force between that sectarian violence. And we could try to keep a lid on it, but if these underlining dynamic continued to bubble up and explode the way they were, then we would be in a difficult situation. I am glad that in fact those political dynamic shifted at the same time that our troops did outstanding work."

"But," asked Moran,"if the country had pursued your policy of withdrawing in the face of this horrific violence, what do you think Iraq would look like now?"

Obama said it would be hard to speculate. . . .

Let me help Mr. Obama. Speculation is guessing among equally possible conclusions. One speculates when there are insufficient facts to make a reasonable projection. But if the facts clearly preponderate in one direction, you are making reasonable estimates. So . . .

In 2007, Iran was deeply involved in dominating the Shia south and al Qaeda had a stranglehold on the Sunni population that the U.S. - supported by and supporting the Awakening movements - was just starting to unravel. Had we drawn back from that, Iraq today would be divided between al Qaeda, Iran and possibly Turkey. Further, al Qaeda, which is now suffering throughout the Middle East because of its complete failure in Iraq, would be in a far stronger position internationally and global Sunni terrorism would not be falling.

See, no speculation needed.

Obama also told Moran that there were circumstances under which he could revise his instruction to U.S. generals to begin withdrawing combat brigades at the pace of one-to-two per month.

"I've always reserved the right, uh, to say---let's say that ethnic, uh, ethnic fighting broke out once again---I've reserved the right to say---I don't--I'm not going to stand idly by if genocide is occurring. . . .

Is there anything that Obama will not lie about? Obama specifically justified surrendering in Iraq irrespective of whether it would lead to genocide. Let's take a trip down memory lane to July 20, 2007:

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

“Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

“We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven’t done. Those of us who care about Darfur don’t think it would be a good idea,” he said. Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, said it’s likely there would be increased bloodshed if U.S. forces left Iraq. . . .

Read the entire article. This is a man willing to say anything to get elected. He is as intellectually a dishonest person as I can ever recall taking the public stage - and that includes the last Democrat to hold the Presidency. Indeed, Obama puts slick Willie to shame.

Bottom line - Obama's judgment is not just suspect, but nearly nonexistent. He may have some small iota of judgement to lead, but it is utterly clear that it would be in a direction no one would want to follow.