Hackneyed Battle-Lines

Sean Hannity, Charles Krauthammer, etc./the Republicans in Washington - they're all seething in response to president Obama's Iraq speech. They're mad that he 1) never admitted that the surge worked, 2) didn't give President Bush credit for the surge, and 3) refrained from declaring U.S. victory. Well, guess what, folks, apart from possibly #2, President Obama was correct in these omissions. The surge flat-out DIDN'T work. This, folks, in that there still ISN'T a unified government in Iraq. And as far as that victory goes, we haven't exactly achieved that, either (no unified government, violence back on the rise, millions and millions of displaced civilians, a still largely destroyed infrastructure, Christians basically having to worship in secret, etc., etc.). I mean, just ask the American public here. They'll tell ya' (I cite a recent CNN poll which states that 65% of the American people say that we HAVEN'T achieved our objectives in Iraq...................................................................................................P.S. And let us not forget, either, folks, the stated reasons for our going into Iraq IN THE FIRST PLACE were weapons of mass destruction and a supposed link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. If in fact we're supposed to give President Bush all this credit for the surge, should we not also hold the fellow responsible for getting us involved in the first place? I'm just asking here....................................................................................................P.S. 2 I also want it known that these sentiments are coming from someone who HASN'T engaged in a plethora of Bush bashing. I've actually defended Mr. Bush on occasions (against Nazi comparisons, etc.). I'm just trying to stand up to revisionism (Charles Krauthammer, especially - he should clearly know better), that's all.