The truth hurts: Obama truly had rather lose the war than the campaign.

The Obama campaign and its left-wing legacy media sycophants are furious. Sen. McCain told the truth when he claimed Obama preferred to lose the Iraq War than lose the election. Some label this a “false charge.” Most of these critics say it is “over-the-top” or “harsh stuff.” This is reminiscent of many denunciations of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, wherein honest and accurate accounts of events that exposed a left-wing candidate were dubbed “Swift Boating,” as if nomeclature somehow turned objective fact into an unfair smear (as an aside, I look forward to the story about John Edwards’ illegitmiate child being awarded the “Swift Boat” label, which I expect to happen as soon as this sordid matter gets dragged into the mainstream).

Ben Domenech and Confederate Yankee have both posted excellent blogs about an interview Sen. Obama gave with Terry Moran of ABC News. Yet there is a nugget buried within one graf that deserves to be explored:

“The surge of U.S. troops, combined with ordinary Iraqis’ rejection of both al Qaeda and Shiite extremists has transformed the country,” said Moran. “Attacks are down more than 80 percent nationwide. U.S. combat casualties have plummeted, with five this month so far, compared with 78 last July. And Baghdad has a pulse again. … If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?” “No, because,” Sen. Obama responded, “keep in mind that, that…”

The incredulous Moran couldn’t help himself, interrupting: “You wouldn’t?”

“Well, no, keep in mind – these kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult,” Sen. Obama said. “You know, hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is that at that time, we had to change the political debate, because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with.” (emphasis mine)

So there you have it. Obama’s opposition to the surge wasn’t due to what He deemed a poor military decision. No, the political debate had to be changed because The Messiah disagreed with the Bush Administration over the fact we were at war in the first place. And even after Obama later was presented with ovewhelming evidence the surge worked, He couldn’t acknowledge it. That’s the problem with immortals. When mistakes are made they cannot be acknowledged, particularly if He “disagreed” with something related to the error. Of greater concern to Him, if Obama now admitted the surge worked He might still lose some of his left-wing base.

Obama criticized his Democratic primary opponent Sen. Hillary Clinton because she voted to authorize force. Obama’s early opposition to the Iraq War was the rationale behind His early campaign. He didn’t care about any aspect of the surge other than how it impacted His ambitions. This is quite a contrast with McCain, who even critics like me have to acknowledge sacrificed political capital to push the surge.

Perhaps a defensible argument could be made that McCain’s commercial was “harsh” if Obama had acknowledged the surge worked. But since The Messiah didn’t, and obviously wouldn’t as a crass political calculation, this line of attack is spot on. A politician easily could have opposed the war, and even the surge, yet would have to admit tactics have worked. Otherwise, he would be open to the charge of preferring a political victory to a military one. You can tell by the Left’s feigned outrage that the facts support McCain here.

Not that it matters to these particular critics, mind you.