Okay, let's talk more issues.
Let's talk about Iraq. We've basically won. If Obama had his way, we would have lost since he opposed the Surge. And months after the Surge, he refused to admit that he was wrong and that victory is at hand. Things are going so much better that Iraq's basically disappeared off the front pages. If it doesn't bleed, it doesn't lead.
McCain, on the other hand, advocated the sending of additional forces into Iraq and the change in the mission, even though it was deemed unpopular at the time. He was right about it. No Democrat gives him credit for being right. Nor does President Bush get any credit for winning the war or preventing all attacks on American soil for the last seven years.
According to Bob Woodward, it seems that General George Casey had been the one most adamantly opposed to having additional forces and was replaced by General Petraeus, who was given what the always-wrong New York Times claimed was an impossible mission. Once Casey was gone, Petraeus then proceeded to implement a two-prong strategy. First additional forces went into the most troubled areas of Baghdad and the Ambar Province. The second was to make alliances with the new Sunni Awakening movement, which represented former al Qaeda allies who were tired of al Qaeda's tactics of murdering Iraqi civilians. Instead, they turned against al Qaeda and allied with us. With their help, we were able to root out al Qaeda hiding places and kill or capture many of their leaders.
With the two-part strategy executed, Iraq has basically been won and al Qaeda decimated by two-thirds. A captured letter on an al Qaeda courier sent by Ayman al-Zawahiri (al Qaeda's #2, bin Laden's deputy) was found showing Zawahiri's anger at the incompetence of al Qaeda in Iraq and berating them for poor strategy and the inability to stand up to the Americans. The letter also said that recruitment was down significantly. al Qaeda knows it's facing imminent defeat.
So with al Qaeda on the run and nearly destroyed, Obama still claimed that the Surge was a bad idea. It was in an interview with Bill O'Reilly just last week where he finally admitted that it had succeeded beyond anyone's expectations after repeated questioning. He was wrong in one respect. McCain and Bush both had expectations that it would work and they had the courage to do what was needed to win.
Since President Bush's global strategy was to occupy al Qaeda and destroy them in foreign battlefields rather than facing them on our own soil, I'd say it's worked pretty well with very light losses when compared to every war America has ever fought, except the original Gulf War in 1990.
Today America is much safer with al Qaeda demoralized and on the run. And there have been no attacks on US soil in seven years, not for the lack of trying.
Anyone notice on the back pages of the newspaper that last week, the once deadly and now peaceful Ambar province has been turned over to the Iraqis? Eleven of the seventeen provinces have now been turned over to Iraqi control. And by next spring, coalition forces will return to their bases outside the cities and will turn to a passive mission of training and supporting the Iraqi military and police. As President Bush has stated many times, when the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down. That's exactly what's happening.
McCain, at the risk of his own political defeat, championed an unpopular cause and along with Joe Lieberman and President Bush, gave our forces what was necessary to win. Obama would not and neither would Joe Biden, who also voted against the Surge. Both were dead wrong.
Does anyone believe that Obama would have the courage to commit US forces into combat under any circumstance? His first instinct is withdrawal and defeat. There is something to what Palin said when the word, "victory," never passes his lips except when it's about winning an election. If Obama had been in charge, our soldiers would be coming home in defeat, al Qaeda would have been emboldened and would be using Iraq as a base to attack its neighbors and our allies, and those friendly to our country in the Middle East would be cowed. Israel would be further endangered. Instead we have a Muslim democracy in the heart of the Middle East that puts a dagger into al Qaeda's hopes of controlling the region. Even the now dead Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (first leader of al Qaeda in Iraq) knew it. In another captured letter about four years ago, Zarqawi basically admitted that their cause would be almost impossible to sustain if America were to win in Iraq as democracy is the enemy of their cause. That's why al Qaeda has fought us so hard in Iraq.
For his lack of judgment in the vital area of national security and his refusal to acknowledge success in Iraq, Obama should not receive a single vote, as the president's first responsibility is to keep his country safe since he can't be trusted to take on the hard jobs. In the middle of a war, there is no more important issue. Ironically, President Bush's successes in the War on Terror have left him with a population that has essentially forgotten about the dangers presented by our enemies. Like Harry Truman, who had equally poor approval ratings, history will judge him far better than the current electorate.
As for Obama, I find it appalling that a man campaigning for our defeat even has a chance of being elected to the presidency. The thought that a President Obama would be commanding our forces in Afghanistan is absolutely frightening, knowing he wouldn't have the fortitude or the desire to win. Does anyone believe that McCain doesn't have the intestinal fortitude and ability to successfully prosecute the war?
