Barack Obama and the Democrats dead wrong on the surge

Obama, of course, is backtracking, going so far as to "scrub" criticism of the surge from his campaign website.  Barack Obama's message of hope and change, believe, we are the ones we've been waiting for, etc., sorely lack any substance whatsoever.  The adoring multitudes don't seem to care or even to notice.  Obama can't win with just his adoring followers, however.  He needs something to attract independent voters so now he's thrown in "judgment to lead". Politicians are just like the rest of us.  They make mistakes in judgment from time to time.  But as Obama now surely realizes he made a serious misjudgment on the surge in Iraq.  Maybe he truly believed the surge was a mistake or maybe he was just trying to appease the far left wing of his party.  Either way he was "spectacularly wrong".  Being spectacularly wrong on national security can have deadly consequences for the American people and our allies around the world.  Especially so for our men and women in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Obama is not alone in the Democratic Party

In  July, after evidence was amassing that the surge was working, Obama said, "My assessment is that the surge has not worked."

Obama, then, was not only wrong about the surge; he was spectacularly wrong. And he continued to remain wrong even as mounting evidence of its success gave way to overwhelming evidence of its success.

But Obama is not alone. Virtually the entire Democratic party, including every Democrat running for president, opposed the surge. For example, Senator Joseph Biden--considered by some pundits a foreign policy sage--declared, a few days before the surge was announced, "If he surges another 20, 30 [thousand], or whatever number he's going to, into Baghdad, it'll be a tragic mistake."

So much for judgment:

Hillary Clinton, on the night the surge was announced, said, "Based on the president's speech tonight, I cannot support his proposed escalation of the war in Iraq."

Senator John Kerry said this in February 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."

Kerry's fellow Massachusetts senator, Ted Kennedy, declared that any troop increase would be "an immense new mistake."

Representative Dennis Kucinich, in this instance speaking for the mainstream of his party, put it this way: "It has been proven time and time again that troop surges don't work."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in April 2007, declared the war lost. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi put in her two cents in February of this year:

In February of this year, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer about the success of the surge in Iraq. "Are you not worried, though, that all the gains that have been achieved over the past year might be lost?" Blitzer asked.

"There haven't been gains, Wolf," Pelosi replied. "The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure."

Bill Richardson chimes in:

And as recently as last month, Governor Bill Richardson, when asked if he was ready to concede that John McCain had been right in proposing the surge because it seemed to be having a positive impact, answered, "Absolutely not."

In the face of overwhelming evidence that the surge in Iraq is working, candidate Obama has no choice but to acknowledge it:

Obama, in typical fashion, is trying to use the success of the surge he opposed to justify his long-held commitment to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq as quickly as possible. But turning Iraq into a winning political issue won't be nearly as easy as Obama once thought. He has stepped into a trap of his own making.

The trap was set when Obama repeatedly insisted that his superior "judgment" on Iraq is more important than experience in national security affairs. Judgment, according to Obama, is what qualifies him to be commander in chief...

If Obama insists on making this election about "judgment", he should lose.  Spectacularly.  And take more than a few Democrats in Congress down with him.

This man does not belong in the White House.  "Eh... uh... I... uh..."  (Or the Senate for that matter).  Judgment to lead?