The Three Falsehoods in Barack Obama's Iraq War Address

Was Barack Oama trying to shore up progressive support before the midterms with his oval office address on the “end” of the Iraq War? I think so, because he resorted to several lies which progressives desperately want to hear. The value of telling those lies is so dubious, even Chris Matthews ha resorted to, ’How can you not like this guy/” defensive tactics rather than supporting facts.

First, Obama claimed there are no combat troops left in Iraq. This is false. there are 50,000 troops left in Iraq. They are not all logistics experts and support. There are plenty of soldiers who will undertake combat missions as needed and suffer casualties for doing so. For the president to deliberately deny soldiers are still I harm’s way with the potential of making the ultimate sacrifice is awful. But progressives want the war to end regardless of the consequences, so there.

Second, Obama did not give credit where credit is due. More specifically, Bush 43’s sure I troops made the eventual draw down of soldiers possible. Obama not only opposed the surge, but voted to de-fund the military operation while he was a senator. He is tacitly taking credit or something that would not have happened if he had his way.

Finally, Obama blamed the poor economy o the war. That was a cheap shot against Bush 43, which is no surprise. Obama has been on a Blame Bush meme since his inauguration. That is music to progressive ears. They do hold grudges I their little stone cold, black hearts, so they not? But the facts are that Congress managed to balance the budget while paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Never mind, too, the CBO just announced the stimulus, a boondoggle if there ever was one, cost more than the entire Iraq War. So where is the basis for oama’s claim? It is non-existent.

These three falsehoods are easily exposed, but since progressives are disinclined to alter their viewpoints to fit the facts, Obama may have effectively appeased his progressive base. But what, pray tell, was the point? Bush 43 iis front and center in all three, but is he still enough of a Boogey Man to raise Democrat fortunes in general? I have doubts.