With some conservatives beginning to beat the drum for David Petraeus to enter the political battlefield, I offer a look at an early “confrontation” between Senator/Candidate Obama and the general.
by Michael Naragon
Predictable. When Candidate Obama, who had served 980 days in the Senate, got his chance to seize the national spotlight and, again, bash the Bush Administration over its war policy, he grabbed it with both hands. Gen. David Petraeus, who, by contrast, had logged over 30 years as a military officer, including over 2,500 days as a general, was forced to sit and endure the former community organizer’s railings against the Commander in Chief and complain about, of all things, the expense of the war for the American taxpayer.
Keep in mind as you watch that Petraeus was summoned to the Armed Services Committee to testify (i.e., answer questions) about the tactical nature of the war, not the political ramifications or the economic aspect. Candidate Obama asks Petraeus nothing, but instead uses his position on the committee to rail against his soon-to-be predecessor, a tactic which has become virtually habitual. Count it off: over seven minutes of diatribe leading to no questioning whatsoever.
Did Obama really say, “We don’t have limitless resources…” and that the Senate must make decisions “based on costs as well as benefits…”? He even seemed a little incredulous at the prospect of spending a trillion dollars to free Iraq, a pittance compared to his multi-trillion-dollar health care debacle that will ultimately enslave Americans to his regime. Apparently, his attitude toward spending has changed somewhat since his handful of days as a Senator.
Candidate Obama also disputed the effect of the Surge, relative to the costs involved. Now, three years later, the Obama administration is beginning to take credit for the success in Iraq that came as a result of this same Surge. Ironic and worth remembering.
