It is par for the course as it relates to this President, the same old tired song, like death and taxes, it is decreed and has somehow become a certainty that no Obama milestone will ever be reached without the accompanying clamor of discontent from the President’s detractors that serve to marginalize or diminish its impact.
Still, last night while reading through the comments of various diaries announcing the withdrawal of the last American combat brigade from Iraq, I was struck with amazement to actually see individuals denying President Obama credit for the Iraqi troop withdrawal, while bestowing the honor on George W. Bush, due ostensibly to a formality known as the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, which I will address momentarily.
I suppose it was expected that Republicans would try to credit George W. Bush for the ending of "Operation Freedom", a misguided enterprise which ignominiously caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent individuals and years of untold suffering...but Democrats? Well, I guess so.
Nevertheless, the spin is on to credit George W. Bush for the drawdown of Iraqi combat troops. The message is clear; this is Bush’s doing and certainly not the achievement of that usurper Barack Obama. Former Bush speechwriter, now Washington Post contributor, Michael Gerson suggested as much as he commented on a recent speech by President Obama on the pull down of said troops.
I didn't find the speech to be a particularly generous speech. I mean, this is really the implementation of the status of forces agreement that was agreed to in 2008 under the Bush administration. Barack Obama, people forget, actually voted against funding for the troops. He opposed the surge. He gave a speech without mentioning the surge or General Petraeus. I think that that's probably, you know, he's attempting to take credit for something that he opposed.
What Mr. Gerson is omitting, however, is the larger fact that Barack Obama was against the Iraqi War in general, and therefore was committed to ending it. This was in contrast to the Republicans, and George W. Bush, who were galvanized by the war, and were committed to its continuation.
But here we are at the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, which is ironically now being used to shore up George W. Bush’s anti war credentials. If the Iraqi debacle were not so tragic it would be high comedy indeed.
Many seem to have conveniently forgotten that while presidential candidate Barack Obama was pledging to end the war in Iraq, the Republicans were holding fast to this maddening escapade, and it was partly due to his focus on ending this travesty, and the growing unease of a weary nation, why the trajectory of the conflict began to change. A CBS News headline from July 21, 2008 read:
Obama, Maliki Agree On Iraq Withdrawal By 2010
The story went on to explain:
Face to face with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama gained fresh support Monday for the idea of pulling all U.S. combat forces out of the war zone by 2010. The Iraqi government did not endorse a fixed date, but indicated it hoped American combat units could be out of Iraq sometime in 2010. That timeframe falls within the 16-month withdrawal plan proposed by Obama.
If memory serves me correctly, Obama was widely criticized by many in the media and the Republican Party for daring to contemplate the pulling out of combat troops from Iraq, not just by 2010, but by any timetable. The media, as well as the Republicans, were put to shame when Nouri al-Maliki, as well as many in the international community agreed with the presidential candidate. How did Obama’s Republican rival, John McCain, feel about this?
Back in the U.S., Republican rival John McCain said he hoped Obama's visit would open his eyes to the danger of withdrawal timetables.
And what about that peacenik George W. Bush, the man being credited by some for the pull out of combat troops due to the status of forces agreement? Once again, CBS News:
In Washington, the White House expressed displeasure with recent public comments by Iraqi leaders on the withdrawal question and suggested they might have the U.S. election on their minds.
Still, no trip down the ol’ Iraqi conflict memory lane, as it relates to the withdrawal of combat troops, would be complete without a word or two from the Iraqis themselves. Iraqi spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said this following Obama’s meeting with al-Maliki:
We are hoping that in 2010 that combat troops will withdraw from Iraq.
And this from Iraq’s Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi:
I'd be happy if we reach an agreement to say, for instance, the 31st of December 2010.
It is interesting to note that while the Iraqi’s were hoping for a withdrawal by December 2010. Obama, based on this report and statements on the campaign trail was pursuing a much earlier departure.
Once again, these statements were made during the presidential candidate’s trip to Iraq on July 21, 2008, so what about this U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement? Well, it should be also noted that the first signing of this agreement was made on November 17, 2008, at least four months following the Obama-al-Mali declarations.
No, Barack Obama is definitely not some wanton interloper in this entire process. From the early days of his presidential campaign he sought a reduction of U.S. troops in Iraq, and formulated a timetable for its implementation. Yes, the status of forces agreement between the U.S. and Iraq established a timetable and condition of withdrawal of U.S. troops from that besieged nation, but beyond its physical signing, let it be clear, George W. Bush was definitely not the architect of what occurred in Iraq yesterday.
CBS:
http://cbs5.com/...
Michael Gerson:
http://newsbusters.org/...