Tom Curry nails Obama’s Iraq wrongs

Curry nails the key issue: How many troops will Obama keep there after removing all “combat” troops?

After all, 40 years ago, we had thousands of “trainers” in Vietnam before bringing in combat troops. And Curry dives in ther

Close readers will not overlook Obama’s use of the phrase “combat troops.” That implies that other troops — trainers, observers, etc. — he calls them “residual troops” — would remain in Iraq, since training the Iraq army and police would remain a mission under would-be President Obama.

“What kinds of troop presences will we need in order for that (training) to occur?” Obama wondered last week. “What kind of troop presence do we need to have a counterterrorism strike force in Iraq that assures that al Qaida does not regain a foothold there?”

Well, you mean, you didn’t research this before making your straddling position about getting us “out” (not counting all these non-combat troops) of Iraq in the first place? Or, are you being disingeneous, having some indication from Petraeus or some other brass hat that “non-combat troops” may be a bigger number than you would like to publicly admit?

Here’s Obama’s stupidest statement in the whole shooting match:

And the withdrawal, Obama said in 2006, “could be suspended if at any point U.S.commanders believe that a further reduction would put American troops in danger.”

C’mon, BO, you’re old enough to have seen the Saigon 1975 pictures.

There is no such thing as a “safe withdrawal.”

The man’s chutzpah gets unveiled more all the time.