If Barack Hussein Obama was against the succesful surge in Iraq, why is he for one in Afghanistan?

Obama serving up more flip-flops at his Waffle House! Ofcourse, the diseased liberals with amnesia will see Obama as the epitome of "fortitude"



Liberalism is a mental disorder!If Barack Hussein Obama was against the succesful surge in Iraq, why is he for one in Afghanistan?
You lose the luxury of partisan second guessing when you're face to face with reality.
He feels the war in Afghanistan is necessary and the Iraq war was not.





btw, I am not a liberal. I am a conservative/If Barack Hussein Obama was against the succesful surge in Iraq, why is he for one in Afghanistan?
It's a more popular war, oh i mean police action.
mm source?If Barack Hussein Obama was against the succesful surge in Iraq, why is he for one in Afghanistan?
Afghanistan is where the fight should have been taken. That's where Al Qaeda is based. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The coalition forces in Afghanistan are severely under-manned.



Saddam Hussein could have been dealt with later. At least when he was in power there were no terrorists or insurgents in his country. He ruled with an iron fist. The Iraq war has brought the country into lawlessness and has bred a whole new generation of terrorists. The insurgency and terrorism in Iraq is a direct product of the US invasion.

The Iraq war is not the Liberal's mess.



EDIT: tomthebobcat, actually the Taliban use the heroin to fund their activities. The US ignored this when they first went into Afghanistan. Only now do they have teams set up with the specific purpose of destroying poppy crops. Thus restricting the taliban's war chest.
Because he is a clueless idiot. Most people knowledgeable regarding Afghanistan say that we are best served by training the Afghanistan Army to do the job, not by sending in more troops.



It is interesting that O'Crackhead is now taking credit for things that he had nothing to do with. His lies pile up daily and prove that he is the biggest phony on the planet.
Need to keep the taliban from stopping heroin production.

When the taliban took over they stopped the locals growing poppies. the USA went in %26amp; they are back in full production.
he was against the surge in Iraq because the far left libs wouldnt vote for him if he was for it. He is for the surge in Afghanistan because the surge in Iraq worked and he needs to appear as if he isnt another jimmy carter to the voters in the general election.

Same you can believe in!
Because the mission in Iraq was COMPLETE when Saddam was out of power. AND BECAUSE Afghanistan was the actual safe haven for terrorists like Bin Laden. BECAUSE Iraq never was a threat to the US to BEGIN WITH. BECAUSE Afhanistan is still a safe have for terrorists like Bin Laden.



Suicide bombers in Iraq only happened AFTER the US invaded and took down EVERY SINGLE military department and police force the country had.
Simple, he saw it worked so he can disavow it where he is on record as being against it, and call it his own after it has already been proven.



It is really elementary. Iraq had a socialist government by name the party overthrown was the Baath Socialist Party, so the libs and their traitorous friends are pained at the loss of a stronghold. In Afganistan, the Taliban kicked the dog crap out of their Soviet Commrades, so this is the chance to get a victory operating as Americans.
Well maybe the one in Afghanistan won't be successful?
Because that's where Osama and Al Qaeda are operating from, if not inside the remote regions of Pakistan.
The difference is Bush created Suicide bombers in Iraq while Taliban created suicide bombers in Afghanistan.
Obama is now saying the surge in Iraq was not what brought about the security we see today, but political will. If that is the case, why send more troops into Afghanistan? Just tell the Government of Afghanistan to buck up.



Sooner or later you have to realize that this guy is only repeating lines his huge number of handlers tell him to say. If you vote for Obama you are not getting a leader, you are getting a committee and a consensus of that committee.



Consensus seeking is not leadership. In fact, it is the abdication of leadership. If Obama has demonstrated anything at all in the 20 some years since he received an Ivy League education and a prestigious law degree, I would like to know what it is.



*