July 29, 2008

McCain's old; Obama's excuse?

From Jake Tapper's Political Punch (my emphasis):

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, on January 10 2007 predicted that the surge of troops in Iraq would fail. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," he told MSNBC. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Four days later he told CBS's Face the Nation, that "we cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality -- we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground."

But this past Sunday, Obama told Tom Brokaw that

... I said there's no doubt that additional U.S. troops could temporarily quell the violence. But unless we saw an underlying change in the politics of the country, unless Sunni, Shia, Kurd made different decisions, then we were going to have a civil war and we could not stop a civil war simply with more troops.

But ... did he? The only thing that Tapper could get from the Obama campaign to substantiate The Messiah's claim actually seems to contradict it, especially this line:

... I would disagree the bombings and the deaths that have been occurring over the last several weeks, you hadn't seen any real significant difference over what we've seen in the last year.

Sheesh. And when stalwart liberal journalist Richard Cohen ain't fooled by The Messiah, y'know somethin's up.

Posted by Hube at July 29, 2008 06:11 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)