The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a “problem” that had barely reduced violence.
“The surge is not working,” Obama’s old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.
The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.
Obama’s campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an “improved security situation” paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007. It praises G.I.s’ “hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice.”That would be the American troops he accuses of occupying Iraq- he sure does know how to honour their service.
It's also interesting to note that on his Iraq page he still has the following under the heading of "Judgement You Can Trust"-
In 2002, as the conventional thinking in Washington lined up with President Bush for war, Obama had the judgment and courage to speak out against going to war, and to warn of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.”
Note too his continued reference to the liberation of Iraq and the US military presence there to fight bloodthirsty terrorists who slaughter the innocent an occupation.
There's no mention whatsoever of his self-declared "judgement" in declaring the surge a failure last year-
"Here's what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said today, 'Well, even in September, we're going to need more time.' So we're going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the president's plan."
Or what about his judgement here-
I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.
My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.
Judgement you can trust- really?