I tripped across this illustrious piece of historical revisionism at Rachel Marsden. Some excerpts in her critique of Obama:
Obama: Speaks a lot of hope, but the Iraqi people frankly wouldn't have much of it if he was in charge - because they'd still be living under Saddam Hussein.
Yes. And if the U.S. CIA had not put Saddam in power in the first place (Morris, Roger, "Remember: Saddam was our man", New York Times, March 14, 2003 ), sold him weapons, and participated in his first war of aggression (on HIS side), Saddam would now be an Iraqi exile driving a taxi in Egypt. Not to worry, I'm sure that Bush and his evil stepson McCain will busy themselves putting in power the next generation of Saddams.
Obama brags about having voted against that mission of "hope" - despite the added bonus of Iraq having been one of more than 60 countries in which al-Qaeda was established.
Maybe we should have bombed America since this was also a country in which "al-Qaeda was established." Or we could have gone after Britain (the planes don't have to fly so far that way).
In fact, he's so turned off by the idea of defending democracy and freedom that one of the only real legislative efforts he's put forth is the "Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007". Because, you know, it's not like pulling out of Afghanistan right after the late 80s combat operations against the Soviets led to the much bigger problem we have now.
This is an interesting twist! It was precisely the U.S. and close ally Saudi Arabia's involvement that got this whole mess rolling. The U.S. was bankrolling the Taliban and the same groups that later took on the moniker al-Qaeda. I guess only the past 10 years were covered in Rachel's Cliff Notes on World History.
McCain: Has said that he's willing to stay in the Mideast for as long as it takes to drain the al-Qaeda swamp. He has a problem with terrorists being subjected to frat antics . . .
Rachel. You really need to join a different fraternity. At your fraternity, people evidently shove a running hose down your throat and then have a doctor revive you, shove a baseball bat up your ass, sic dogs on you, strip you and take photos, keep you up for days, and occasionally end up killing you (even though your "crime" may only be attending a protest in the wrong section of town). At my fraternity, we never played such frat antics.
Something tells me he'd [McCain] probably have some idea what he's doing as Commander in Chief of US Forces.
The US spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined; with the fall of the British and then the Soviet empires, the U.S. has probably never been so secure in its entire history; and the economy is imploding as we spend a couple trillion in Iraq. Yet the chief consideration should be that we need a good general? Even if this were the case, why in the world would we hire McCain to do the job? This is someone who graduated at the bottom of his class and whose sole qualification is that he was captured in war. You ridicule Obama for being so forward looking, but it's you who are out of step with the times . . . and the place. You'd be quite at hope in the center of Europe half a century back with your fellow Christian soldiers marching off to war.