Crossposted at An Idea Lives On
The Wall Street Journal has an editorial today titled Baghdad, Berlin, Barack. The whole point of the editorial is to try to counter Obama's Berlin Speech; it's the Wall Street Journal so it shouldn't shock anyone that they do not like the Democratic nominee for President. But to resort to arguments that are inherently flawed (based on a false premise) is unbecoming of a respected national newspaper.
Here's the part I take issue with:
Mr. Moran asked the Illinois Democrat whether -- "knowing what you know now" -- he would reconsider his opposition to last year's surge of U.S. troops in Iraq. "Well, no," Mr. Obama replied.
What Mr. Obama "knows now" is that the surge he opposed has saved Iraq, much as Harry Truman's airlift saved Berlin and underlined America's intention to defend Europe throughout the Cold War. The surge has also saved American lives in Iraq, with combat-related deaths (so far, there have been seven this month) at an all time low.
Did you catch that? The argument is that Obama is wrong to have opposed the surge because the surge saved American lives. But the premise here is flawed. Saved American lives compared to what? Well, compared to no surge, compared to the occupation as it was pre-surge. This is true of course. But when Obama says he opposed the surge, he is not claiming to support maintaining the pre-surge strategy. He opposed the surge because he supported withdrawal. You want to save American lives? How many Americans would be dying in Iraq if there were no Americans in Iraq?
It's unfortunate that the Wall Street Journal feels the need to distort the facts in order to bash Obama. There's plenty more to take issue with in this editorial, but I felt the need to point this glaring example of dishonesty.