Taliban Dealt Stunning Blows In Afghanistan--It Must Be Super Obama!
Reuters reports, "A senior Taliban commander in southern Afghanistan surrendered to Pakistani authorities and British forces killed another leader, dealing a 'shattering blow' to the militant group's leadership, the British army said on Tuesday."
How can one explain this startling turnaround in the military situation in Afghanistan? Why, it must be Super Obama!
Consider the evidence: Earlier today, according to this news report, the Illinois senator stressed in a news conference that the "situation in Afghanistan is perilous and urgent" and that "we should not wait any longer" to provide additional troops. [Incidentally, the news story notes, that stance angered antiwar activists in Obama's base, who want the U.S. to retreat militarily everywhere, not just in Iraq.] No sooner are the words out of Obama's mouth than the Taliban suffers major losses to its leadership.
This of course follows the pattern in Iraq. In an interview with CBS anchor Katie Couric that will air on tonight's CBS News, Obama repeated that he was correct to oppose the surge in U.S. troop numbers in Iraq, even though violence has declined. Some cynics may suggest that the gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops that the Iraq government said this week that it favors is only possible because of the results of the surge. Obama will not acknowledge that is the case. What other explanation can there be? Why, of course, it is the mere presence of Super Obama in Iraq that has brought about this change!
For that reason I was disappointed to read that Senator Obama, speaking in Amman, Jordan about the prospects of an Israeli-Palestinian peace, said that it is "unrealistic to expect that a U.S. president alone can suddenly snap his fingers and bring about peace in this region."
Why not? If Senator Obama, as a mere presidential candidate, was able to pull off such dazzling achievements in Afghanistan and Iraq, merely by snapping his fingers, why not in the Holy Land as well?