if you consider
all the facts as opposed to just those ones that you find personally to be more satisfying (ie polarisingly complimentary to your
predetermined POVs)
Quote:
Obama, who opposed the troop surge that Petraeus implemented, acknowledged that the shift in strategy in early 2007 has helped reduce violence in Iraq. He also said there has been some, but not enough, progress on political reconciliation.
Obama said that he still would have opposed the surge even knowing what he now knows. He said the surge was only one of several factors -- others being cooperation by Sunni tribal leaders and the decision by the militia of militant cleric Muqtada al-Sadr "to stand down" -- that have improved conditions in Iraq.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain vigorously supported the surge and has criticized Obama for failing to acknowledge its effects in Iraq
|
Obama’s trip abroad: Effect of Iraq surge is downplayed
i have no axe to grind nor preference in whoever wins.... i find McCain being
vigourous in support and accusing Obama of denying any positive effects (when he has acknoweldged improvements) to be as willfully obstinant as Obama saying he would still oppose any troop surge even in light of evidence that it helped the situation.
it just defies rationality.