What I would Like Sen. Obama to Say About the "Surge"

[louis c]

Q. Senator Obama, if you knew then what you know now would you have still been against the "Surge" in troops in Iraq?

A. Let me just say for the record that the "Surge" in Iraq has reduced the level of violence there. That's not the true measure of success to me. I have stated over and over again, since the Iraq War began, that the central focus of our fight against Terrorism is in Afghanistan. The additional troops that were sent to Iraq, over 30,000 brave men and woman, came from the Afghan theater. We have reduced our troop level there, and as a result, our casualties there are the highest of that conflict. al Queda has strengthen their position in the tribal regions of Pakistan and cross the border to attack out troops in Afghanistan with impunity. The countryside is more and more under the control of the Taliban. The "Surge", far from being the success my opponent is proclaiming, is actually another diversion that has cost us our ability to secure Afghanistan and defeat the groups that actually planned and launched the attacks against us on September 11, 2001. So, the answer to your question is no, because we have a weakened position in what I regard, and the vast majority of Americans regard, is the central fight against our terrorist enemies in Afghanistan. But since you wish to use this line of hypothetical questioning, I would like you to ask my opponent if he knew then what he knows now, would he have supported the invasion of Iraq seven years ago?

[louis c]

1. kick

[louis c]

2. kick

[ColbertWatcher]

3. Excellent, every statement from every democrat should conclude...

...with a question for the GOP.

[Pastiche423]

4. Good luck w/that

[Toucano]

5. I love you. n/t