Obama’s Iraq Fantasy

Dan Senor had a piece in the New York Post this week that didn’t get nearly enough attention, buried as it was by all the Hillary-NH-Comeback coverage. Senor notes that while Republicans were debating the roots of Islamic extremism last weekend (“The candidates, for example, discussed Sayyid Qutb’s influence. Qutb isn’t exactly a household name here, let alone the stuff of focus-group-tested messages–but he matters.”) the Democrats refused to accept even the most obvious facts on the ground. Senor singles out Obama in particular for his absurd Iraq Fantasy:

To the 10 million Americans watching, the debate briefly showed that these [Republican] candidates have been seriously thinking about what we are facing in the War on Terror. By contrast, in the night’s second debate, the Democratic candidates jostled to occupy a position at odds with reality – highlighted by Sen. Barack Obama’s absurd claim that it was the Democrats’ winning control of Congress in November 2006 that led to the turnaround in Iraq’s Sunni Anbar province: “I welcome the genuine reductions of violence that have taken place, although I would point out that much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province – Sunni tribes – who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shias. We should start negotiating now. That’s how you change behavior.”… For Obama to try to take credit for that turnaround (or to attribute it to Rep. Rahm Emmanuel’s and Sen. Charles Schumer’s success in managing the ’06 congressional elections) raises questions about his distance from reality. He should clarify this soonest. Obama’s opposition to the war was authentic and thoughtful. But to then oppose the surge, vote against funds for our troops in combat – and then take credit for the success they earned in spite of his opposition? Amazing.

Indeed. And Fred Barnes makes much the same point in this week’s editorial.

Related Content