Gerson Says It Better: McCain, Obama, 'The Surge'
I really liked Michael Gerson's Op-Ed today in the Washington Post. He makes some of the same points that I've been making on this blog, only with greater success and clarity.
Here's the pivotal statement:
This raises the question: If McCain benefited politically from being correct about the surge, why has Barack Obama not been punished for opposing it?In other news, someone's dug up an old (1996) newsletter from the Chicago-based, socialist leaning 'New Party' that suggests that Barack Obama was either a member of the party, or was officially endorsed by it. Check it out and judge for yourselves. Oh, and one more thing: Ayers-Rezko-Wright, but who's counting, right?
It was, after all, the single most important decision Obama has made as a public official. His judgment? "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." This initial reluctance is perhaps understandable; many shared it. But Obama persisted in his skepticism after the results became evident. Even in July of this year, he argued, "the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true."