Speech to The Muslim World: What about Iraq?
In our previous post we commented on President Obama’s out-of-touch-with-reality call for “partnership” between Americans and the tyrannical leaders of hostile Muslim nations, or the people who live under their tyranny and are thus not permitted to partner with Americans.
The emerging exception to tyranny in Muslim nations is, of course, Iraq. Thanks to America Iraq is the Muslim nation where genuine, voluntary, mutually beneficial partnerships with Western companies are already developing.
But, here’s what our American President had to say about Iraq in his address to all the world’s Muslims:
Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.
The President should speak with with pride of a monumental, humanitarian achievement in Iraq. America made an enormous investment of blood and treasure, over six years, to free the Iraqi people from Saddam’s sadistic rule, to root out Al Qaeda and Iranian invaders, all to help these Muslim people take the first faltering steps toward individual liberty and consensual government. Yet this American President characterizes our triumph as a sad object lesson, a failure to use diplomacy and build consensus.
Throughout the struggle in Iraq, as American forces and American diplomats strived against long odds, Barack Obama advocated retreat and failure. When he had the opportunity to be an idealistic leader in the cause of Liberty he deferred to the defeatist dogma that “Bush’s war” was an irreversible disaster.
In January, 2007 President Bush announced the radical change in strategy and tactics, including military, political and economic initiatives and a temporary increase in troop strength that would become known as “The Surge.” Minutes later Senator Obama said in a TV interview:
I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.
A few days later he said:
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.
In July, 2007 as the intense combat phase of the new strategies and initiatives was in full force, and the troops deserved unqualified support from the home front, Senator Obama appeared on The Today Show and said:
My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.
He repeatedly tried his best prevent success in Iraq, first by introducing legislation that would have aborted the surge just as it began, and by twice voting to withdraw funds for the Iraq operation, even as US troops were engaged in daily combat.
Why was Obama so driven to bring about failure in Iraq? Why does he now refuse to remind the world’s Muslim people of the priceless gift America has bestowed upon the now-free Muslims of Iraq? He told us why a thousand times on the campaign trail. Because of pride and arrogance. Because, from his irrelevant position in the Illinois State Legislature he opposed the 2003 invasion.
Talk is cheap Mr. President. The world is watching and waiting for action, for you to eliminate the threat of nuclear attack from North Korea and Iran, through diplomacy and consensus, without firing a missile or dropping a bomb. Until then, your cheap, arrogant, self-centered criticism rings hollow.
