Cuffy Meigs finds this “gem” from Obama’s ever-expanding memory hole: “Reminder: 2 Years Ago Today Was Obama’s Iraq Surrender Day”:
As a novice Senator, Barack Obama introduced few significant pieces of legislation, but one that he was especially proud of was the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007. Had his signature Act gone into effect, the now-unquestionably successful surge would have never happened and March 31, 2008 would have been an ignominious one for American history books:
The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007
The Obama plan offers a responsible yet effective alternative to the President’s failed policy of escalation. Realizing there can be no military solution in Iraq, it focuses instead on reaching a political solution in Iraq, protecting our interests in the region, and bringing this war to a responsible end. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with the expectation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.
Today, President Obama is deploying his own surge to Afghanistan. Meanwhile in Iraq, democracy blooms according to Foreign Policy:
Iraq’s Election Was Free and Fair
Despite the complaints from some quarters, Iraq’s young democracy is headed in the right direction.
Overshadowed by horrific stories of death and sacrifice, the evolution of Iraq’s political system has been a remarkable, if unheralded, achievement. Thousands of citizens’ organizations have emerged — many of them devoted to tackling social ills, cleaning up the environment, improving local communities, and protecting human rights. Unlike so many Arab countries with severe restrictions on speech and stifling Internet censorship, Iraq enjoys vigorous political debate. It is important that Iraq’s progress is not reversed by those attempting to manipulate the results for their own purposes in the election’s aftermath.
Though he will never, ever admit it, here’s hoping Obama learned from his earlier surge-killing mistake.
Meanwhile, Evan Coyne Maloney takes his own “Trip Down Memory Lane” alongside Obama’s most fervent early supporters:
Not too long ago, taking to the streets to protest your government was considered a patriotic act.
But it seems that publicly airing your grievances stopped being patriotic right around noon on January 20th, 2009.
Once President Obama was sworn in, protesting became incitement to violence.
If you’ve opened up a newspaper or watched a cable news program in the past week or so, you’ve probably seen members of the media painting Tea Party activists as dangerous bigots. That’s because disagreeing with President Obama on issues like government spending and high taxes makes you a racist, you see.
What’s interesting about the media’s latest freak-out is that there were radicals a-plenty under President Bush. They protested in the streets. They talked openly about revolution and killing. But oddly, the violent imagery used by people claiming to be advocates for peace never registered with the media. They were too busy fawning over Cindy Sheehan.
Why the difference in coverage? Did the media cheerlead the protests against President Bush to hurt him politically? Are they trying to marginalize the increasingly powerful Tea Party movement because they favor President Obama’s agenda?
One thing’s for sure: If there is such a thing as dangerous rhetoric, then the media is at least one president too late in reporting the story.
Don’t believe me?
Well, then let’s take a trip down memory lane…