A brief tour:
• Democrat Joe Biden, Jan. 2007: "If he surges another 20, 30 [thousand], or whatever number he's going to, into Baghdad, it'll be a tragic mistake."
• Democrat Barack Obama, Jan. 2007: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraqis going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
• Democrat Hillary Clinton, Jan. 2007: "I cannot support [the] proposed escalation of the war in Iraq."
• Democrat Barack Obama, Jan 2007: "I don't think the president's [surge] strategy is going to work."
• Democrat John Kerry, Feb. 2007: "The simple fact is that sending in over 20,000 additional troops isn't the answer--in fact, it's a tragic mistake. It won't end the violence; it won't provide security; ...it won't turn back the clock and avoid the civil war that is already underway; it won't deter terrorists, who have a completely different agenda; it won't rein in the militias."
• Democrat Dennis Kucinich, Feb. 2007: "It has been proven time and time again that troop surges don't work."
• Democrat Harry Reid, Apr. 2007: "The war is lost... This surge is not accomplishing anything."
• Democrat Christopher Dodd, Apr. 2007: "We don't need a surge of troops in Iraq... there is no military solution in Iraq. To insist upon a surge is wrong."
• Democrat Barack Obama, Jul. 2007: "My assessment is that the surge has not worked."
• Democrat Dick Durbin, Aug. 2007: "By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that violence in Iraq is decreasing and thus the surge is working. Even if the figures were right, the conclusion is wrong."
• Democrat Jan Schakowsky, Aug. 2007: "I believe overall the surge is a failure. ...It’s clear to me we cannot win..."
• Democrat Joe Biden, Sep. 2007: "We should stop the surge and start bringing our troops home... [When asked whether Iraq closer to political reconciliation than before the surge began, and would continuing the operation stop the killing between Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds?] ...The answer to both those questions is no."
• Democrat John Kerry, Sep. 2007: ""The president's escalation ... has failed to achieve its goal of bringing about a resolution of the fundamental conflict between Sunni and Shi'ite."
• Democrat Chris Dodd, Sep. 2007: "It pains me to say that ... the surge tactic is a failure — and that failure is reconfirmed everyday by unfolding events in Iraq."
• Democrat Barack Obama, Oct. 2007: "[The surge is a] complete failure... Iraq’s leaders are not reconciling. They are not achieving political benchmarks."
• Democrat Harry Reid, Nov. 2007: "It is indisputable that the goals of the surge have failed."
• Democrat Joe Biden, Nov. 2007: "This whole notion that the surge is working is fantasy."
• Democrat Nancy Pelosi, Feb. 2008: "There haven't been gains [in Iraq]... The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure."
• Democrat Carl Levin, Apr. 2008: "...the purpose of the surge as announced by President Bush last year... has not been achieved"
• Democrat Joe Biden, Apr. 2008: "The purpose of the surge was to bring violence in Iraq down so that its leaders could come together politically. Violence has come down, but the Iraqis have not come together... We Democrats understand that this war must end..."
• Democrat Bill Richardson, Jun. 2008: "[when asked if he was ready to concede that John McCain had been right in proposing the surge, said] "Absolutely not."
Peter Wehner concludes:
Democrats, then, have compounded their initial bad judgment about the surge with reckless obstinacy. As ethno-sectarian violence in Iraq rapidly declined, as al Qaeda absorbed tremendous military blows, and as political accommodation and legislative achievements have emerged, Democrats, rather than welcoming the progress, grew agitated. They embraced with religious zeal the belief that the Iraq war was lost; they therefore viewed the success of the surge as a terribly inconvenient development, one they sought to deny to the point that they looked silly and out of touch. Worse, Democrats acted as if they had a vested interest in an American defeat.
Rarely has a political party been so uniformly wrong, in such an obvious way, on such an important matter. And when Americans cast their vote on November 4, they should carefully consider how Barack Obama and the entire Democratic party fought ferociously and relentlessly to undermine a policy that has worked extraordinarily well...
Democrats called General Petraeus a liar. They said the war was lost. They claimed our troops were barbaric, killing innocent civilians with impunity.
They were wrong. They were unbelievably partisan, putting their interests before those of the United States and the safety of its military.
No party has been more wrong, more often, on serious issues of national import than the Democratic party since 1864.
As for Iraq? Well, let's just say that the Democrats' track record as the Party of Weakness and Defeat remains unblemished.
Update: Even preventing a holocaust wasn't a good enough reason for Obama to keep troops in Iraq:
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...
Linked by: Gateway Pundit and Wolf Howling. Thanks! Sources: Peter Wehner, Stephen Collinson, Democrats.org, New York Times, Think Progress, Democrats.org, Reuters, Carl Levin's Official Website, Chris Dodd's Official Website.
Post a Comment