Obama: If I had it to do over again, I’d still oppose the surge; Update: “Clearly there’s been an enormous improvement”

posted at 8:40 pm on July 21, 2008 by Allahpundit

Shocking. Not that he’d insist he was right all along, all evidence to the contrary — a hallmark of the Iraq debate on both sides — but that he’d offer such a feeble defense. What can this possibly mean?

Q: If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?

A: No, because, keep in mind that…

Q: You wouldn’t?

A: Keep in mind… These kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. Hindsight is 20/20. But I think that, what I’m 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.

There’s more to his answer but they cut him off there; the rest, hopefully, will be played on Nightline. It sounds like he’s heading towards some Kanjorski-esque theory here by which the Democrats actually deserve partial credit for the surge by spooking Bush with threats of defunding the war. If they hadn’t lit a fire under his ass, you see, he wouldn’t have been motivated to do exactly the opposite of what they wanted him to do. Or maybe I’m misreading him, and indeed all he’s saying is that hindsight is 20/20? We’ll find out later. A better answer would have been, “No, because Iraqi security isn’t worth any more American lives.” Which is not to be confused with the correct answer, “No, because I wouldn’t have been nominated if I did.”

That exchange comes at the end of the segment. The beginning is devoted to his meeting of the minds with Petraeus, in which he spins their disagreement about a timetable very cleverly by insisting that the brass in Baghdad is focused laser-like on Iraq whereas he, the would-be C-in-C, has to consider both theaters of the war on terror. Or rather, it would be very clever if not for the fact that Petraeus happens to be the newly appointed commander of Centcom and thus is thinking about the same regional strategic picture Obama is. He knows the stakes in Afghanistan, Barry. That doesn’t make a fixed timetable any less of a bad idea. Click the image to watch.

obama-moran.jpg

Update: Sounds like he and Maliki weren’t perfectly in sync on a timetable either:

Obama said that during their discussion, Maliki spoke about the need for a time frame for withdrawal, “but his view is he wants some flexibility in terms of how that’s carried out.”

Obama also said the Maliki feels his government is ready to exercise more sovereignty.

What the hell was the big to-do this weekend about, then? If Maliki’s not pushing a (mostly) hard-and-fast 16-month timetable, then he’s back at the same vague “time horizons” position he’s been at for the past two weeks.

Update: Marc Ambinder must have gotten a sneak preview of the Nightline segment because he has quotes from Obama admitting that he was wrong about the effectiveness of the surge that I can’t find anywhere else. Note this:

“But,” asked Moran,”if the country had pursued your policy of withdrawing in the face of this horrific violence, what do you think Iraq would look like now?”

Obama said it would be hard to speculate. “The Sunnis might have made the same decisions at that time. The Shii’as might have made some similar decisions based on political calculation. There was ethnic cleansing in Baghdad that actually took the violence level down,” he said.

Reserve judgment until we see the full clip on Nightline.

Update: From the Times, reality bites:

After meeting with Mr. Maliki, Mr. Obama met with Mr. Hashimi in his spacious, ornate house in the Green Zone for about 45 minutes. Beforehand, Mr. Obama said he was “pleased with the progress taking place” in Iraq and said that it was his impression that among Iraqis there was “more optimism about what is happening.”

“You see the activity taking place, the people in the shops, the traffic on the streets, clearly there’s been an enormous improvement,” he said.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

“But I think that, what I’m 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”

No Barry you liar you wanted to pull troops out there was no debate. The surge went forward here we are, no hypothicals here my big headed friend.

The Dems thought they won congress by the will of the American people wanting a quick end to the war. Instead we sent more troops in and look what it got us.

We ALL wanted change I was not happy with the sit back and be targets crap Bush was signing off on to appease the unappeasable. We met force with force and got the Sunnis to get off there asses and take their cities back.

No civil war
No quagmire

TroubledMonkey on July 21, 2008 at 11:02 PM

Sounds like Obama is saying he won’t vote for something that works if Bush is for it.
aikidoka on July 21, 2008 at 10:51 PM

Nailed it.
hillbillyjim on July 21, 2008 at 10:56 PM

This sums it up.

Beto Ochoa on July 21, 2008 at 11:07 PM

Is it me, or does it look like he’s aged a lot? Recently.

Scott P on July 21, 2008 at 11:17 PM

hillbillyjim on July 21, 2008 at 10:56 PM

canopfor on July 21, 2008 at 10:19 PM

This trip has me depressed, boys. He’s so transparently stupid, ill-informed, reckless/partisan, and ambitious that I just can’t imagine him in charge of anything.

The guy hasn’t worked a day since he was elected to the Senate here in Lagos-on-the-Lake. He started running for President on the way home from his acceptance speech. He has redefined worthless for the political class, and that is no mean feat.

Jaibones on July 21, 2008 at 11:20 PM

Is it me, or does it look like he’s aged a lot? Recently Today.

Scott P on July 21, 2008 at 11:17 PM

See there, Scott? I feel better already. Thanks!

Jaibones on July 21, 2008 at 11:21 PM

Obama sucks, I hate him.

winemkr on July 21, 2008 at 11:26 PM

The Audacity of Idiocy.

Baxter Greene on July 21, 2008 at 11:35 PM

“Seems that Johnny Ringo is an educated man…now I really hate him”

mylegsareswollen on July 21, 2008 at 11:36 PM

No wonder BO does not want to debate one on one…he can’t even win the argument with himself.

d1carter on July 21, 2008 at 11:54 PM

Why does this not surprise me?

Send_Me on July 21, 2008 at 11:54 PM

Wow. Stutter, stutter, stumble, um, er, qualification, hesitation…

No wonder Obama doesn’t want to debate McCain extemporaneously and one-on-one. He really is a poor communicator without a teleprompter. And the interviewer was not interrupting or antagonizing him at all, like Meredith Veiera was doing this morning to McCain. I think Obama might start crying if someone did that to him since it’s so hard for him to get a complete thought out to begin with. Ouch.

aero on July 21, 2008 at 11:57 PM

Dale in Atlanta on July 21, 2008 at 9:32 PM

Public Apology #347 -

Sorry, dude. I read some more of the 31 Links – NRO, Chicago Tribune, etc. – serious stuff, not all nutty like Debbie and the Michiganders. You were right, and I was wrong.

Still think it’ll go badly here with the “Obama is a Muslim” schtick, but that’s none of my business. Peace.

Jaibones on July 22, 2008 at 12:02 AM

aero on July 21, 2008 at 11:57 PM

I agree. That was painful to watch. I was actually embarrassed for and of Obama.

McCain on the other hand, handled Meredith quite well and even hit Obama on his opposition to offshore drillng. Meredith just looked hateful and incompetetent.

And now Chris Matthews has been fawning over Obama for his entire time on the Tonight show. NBC is totally in the tank for Obama.

myamphibian on July 22, 2008 at 12:24 AM

Keep in mind… These kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult.

Which is why we need somebody with more experience to think about the consequences before something is done.

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.

So Barry needs to change the subject because he disagrees with Bush. It doesn’t matter whether Bush’s proposal might work. D@mn the consequences, but win the political debate.

clearly there’s been an enormous improvement

Thanks to whom, Barry? Oh, silly me, the Great One will not deign to thank anyone, especially a Republican.

You’re not welcome, either, Barry!

Steve Z on July 22, 2008 at 12:37 AM

The truth shall set you free. That’s what my Dad said.

Travis1 on July 22, 2008 at 12:37 AM

“Not that he’d insist he was right all along, all evidence to the contrary — a hallmark of the Iraq debate on both sides”

Uh, WTF, AP? Nonsense. The fundamental rationale for taking out the former Iraqi regime was and is undiminished. The unmanageable, uncontainable threat represented by that regime’s (thankfully) unique combo of recklessness, resources, and long-term neck-deep involvement in terrorism of almost every flavor could only be definitively ended by invasion and regime change. It wasn’t about WMD inventories. Those (universally and reasonably believed to exist, to this day unaccounted for) inventories represented potential that obviously could never be “uninvented”.

Meanwhile, I’m not sure how a taxonomy of “pro-war” types would work anyway. Many enthusiastic supporters (so enthusiastic they schemed and fought to get there to take part) were beside themselves with dissatisfaction at many specific aspects of post-invasion policy, esp. in the security area. In fact, many of those sorts, while thankful for the “enormous progress” to date, recognize that the particular sequence of events in Iraq may well be used to pernicious effect on the US side, as the mumbo-jumbo b.s. of “counter-insurgency” is given credibility, and the essential common sense about war being a test of wills is further muddled. So what were we “wrong” about, in any way comparable to so many Dems and anti-war types, whose criticism has generally been somewhere between silly and absurd?

So I’d not even agree to being “wrong” about Anbar. Things may be OK now, but the risks and potential costs of future problems are far greater than if we had imposed our will (something relatively easily done, in technical and historical terms) instead of sort of ju-jitsu’d our way with the favorable change in local vibes. Not to mention the huge opportunity costs of a foregone opportunity to solidify our “strong horse” cred.

“Evenhandedness” in the Isr-Pal conflict is morally imbecilic and strategically illiterate; in the domestic Iraq war debate, it’s deeply misinformed and intellectually vapid.

IceCold on July 22, 2008 at 12:51 AM

?Where do I sign up to vote for this guy? Am I allowed to vote for him twice?!?
JadeNYU on July 21, 2008 at 9:01 PM

Of course! First, vote for him in the usual way, then leave the voting center and jump in front of the next passing bus. As soon as you are dead, have an ACORN member take your name, change one letter in your last name and then vote again for you with an absentee ballot.

I got this info from page 18 of the ‘DFL Voters Handbook’.

Bishop on July 22, 2008 at 12:57 AM

The left has already tried to take some credit for the surge, I remember Reid stating that the Dems pushed so hard that Bush had to put in the surge in so that we’d win.

Rbastid on July 22, 2008 at 12:57 AM

I get it now!

The Dems and Obama resisted the Surge so strongly only in order to secretly try to make the Surge that much stronger!

Without their principled resistence it would have been less surgy.

And only their enlightened anti-surging created the really potent surge that surged to victory, so, it was they who created the real surge and not the weak, mistaken Bush/McCain surge that we would have had without the brilliant, reverse psychology politicking of Barry and the D-gang.

Look for this press release from the Obama camp shortly.

profitsbeard on July 22, 2008 at 1:10 AM

profitsbeard, what is your political gut telling you these days?

Entelechy on July 22, 2008 at 1:31 AM

It’s like when Harry Reid took credit for the Rush Limbaugh smear letter raising money for charity. Kafkaesque.

Mojave Mark on July 22, 2008 at 1:35 AM

The Dali Bama is being revealed more and more every day for the weak tea bag he is….

DfDeportation on July 22, 2008 at 1:37 AM

Unbelievable! We need a Kasparov and instead may get a guy whose idea of playing the game is eating the checkers.

We are so screwed.

America1st on July 22, 2008 at 1:39 AM

Obama: If I had it to do over again, I’d still oppose the surge; Update: “Clearly there’s been an enormous improvement”

Hmmmm, I wonder if Mr. Hopenosis uses toilet paper during his surges, or still does it the old fashioned Arab way???

byteshredder on July 22, 2008 at 1:44 AM

The left has already tried to take some credit for the surge, I remember Reid stating that the Dems pushed so hard that Bush had to put in the surge in so that we’d win.

Rbastid on July 22, 2008 at 12:57 AM

The left will get their friends in the press to repeat this
line like they have with “the surge is not working” so that they will have both sides of the argument.whatever it takes to cover Obama’s a$$ and total lack of judgment.

Democrat Congressman: “We’ve taken public positions which…forced the president…into the surge…which is working”
Yet more question marks come out of the open mouth of the Pennsylvania Congressman
By Jeff Emanuel Posted in
http://www.redstate.com/stories/congress/democrat_congressman_weve_taken_public_positions_which_forced_the_president_into_the_surge_which_is_working

Obama and his leftist friends keep talking about how important it is to get al-qaeda in Pakistan,going into Iraq took our eye off the ball,and Afghanistan is the central front of the WOT.
Besides the fact that defeating Al-qaeda in Iraq forced them to concentrate on Afghanistan,if getting the leaders of
Al-qaeda is so important than they must be pretty dangerous
and their intentions must be stopped….right?
Well Obama might want to educate himself on what is important to our enemies because they have said many times themselves that Iraq is the central front of their war on the west:


Ayman al-Zawahiri Declares Iraq “most important arena” in war on terror

Written by Ayman al-Zawahiri , translation by OSC
Friday, 18 April 2008 00:00
http://iraqstatusreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=337&Itemid=3

“Iraq today is now the most important arena in which our Muslim nation is waging the battle against the forces of the Crusader-Zionist campaign. Therefore, backing the mujahidin in Iraq, led by the Islamic State of Iraq, is the most important task of the Islamic nation today.” — Ayman al-Zawahiri, audio message, April 18, 2008

But facts have never meant anything to liberals have they.
Whatever it takes for them to gain their political power.

Baxter Greene on July 22, 2008 at 1:56 AM

I hate this P.O.S. more every day. That’s right… hate. Obnoxious. Ego Maniac. S.O.B.n’ P.O.S. He’s either the stupidest bastard on Earth or the most evil human being ever born. It’s hard to imagine anyone in control of their brain being anymore ignorant than Obama. He reminds me of the azzclown who speaks for Iran on behalf of the mulahs. Ahmadinejad and Obama. Azzclowns from hell. I hope they rot there together.

Griz on July 22, 2008 at 2:22 AM

Yep. Since the surge worked, he’s for it. If it didn’t work, he would be screaming like code pink.

tx2654 on July 22, 2008 at 2:59 AM

…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.

Seems like he just admitted that Democratic Party political strategy, and BDS, trumped national security.

That’s an amazing admission.

The question then becomes,will the McCain camp run with it?

soundingboard on July 22, 2008 at 3:03 AM

Yes, he knows so much, and is so much better than everybody.

He doesn’t seem to get that Irzq would be a quite different place if he had his way.

What a freakin idiot.

benrand on July 22, 2008 at 3:18 AM

I see the Dem nomination process as a quasi-spiritual means of revealing the corruption of the American public. It should tell you something when 50% of the nation is fine with his nomination and presidency. BO is not our problem– WE are.

leftnomore on July 22, 2008 at 3:22 AM

Still think it’ll go badly here with the “Obama is a Muslim” schtick, but that’s none of my business. Peace.

Jaibones on July 22, 2008 at 12:02 AM

Jailbones: no public apology needed, actually.

Seriously, all joking aside, these “words” on the page always come across “harsh”, but for me, this all fun.

No one, and I mean NO ONE, knows what’s going on inside Obama’s mind (including him, actually), so no one knows if he’s a “Muslim” in his mind, in reality.

Personally, I think he’s probably pretty areligous as an adult.

However, I think there is not doubt that he was born a “Muslim”, and that as a youngster he had at the minimum, a veneer of Muslim raising, training, formality, etc.

But even that, is contrary to what he, and his campaign have been categorically lying about for 4 years.

As a teenager, he clearly, clearly self-radicalized as Marxist-Communist Black/Anti-White Radical under the tuteledge of Frank Marshall Davis; and also as he and his campaign have been lying continually, he grandfather was a Communist sympathizer, his mother was an Anti-American/Communist sympathizer, and his father was a dyed-in-the-wool scountral/rake/Communist.

As a teenager, and into his College years, this man was a Racist, Anti-White, Marxist/Socialist (Self-Admitted, if you read his own books); who took Frank Marshall Davis’ advice, and went to Chicago; where he became a disciple, just like Hillary of Communist activist Saul Alinsky, and who made a cold, hard, calculated Political decision to “convert to Christianity” by joing Jerimiah Wright’s “Church”.

But Wright’s “Church” is really a “Christian” “Church”; it’s an Anti-White/Anti-Semitic/Anti-American Afro-centric Black Liberation Theogology Marxist-Muslim Syncretic abortion of an ideological fetid cesspool miasma swamp…..in other words, the perfect place for Obama and his brain!

Then he hooks up with a clearly Anti-White/Racist Radical Michelle Obama, and Wright’s “Church” becomes the perfect place for this basically Anti-American/Anti-White/Anti-Semitic Self-Radicalized couple, who’ve had more breaks, more affirmitive action, more “gimmees” in life, than you and I and many others put together.

And this isn’t even counting all his demostrable ties to radical Anti-American/Anti-Semitic Iranians, Palestinians and Arabs, the Rezkos, the Ayers, the Dorhns, etc. who he and his campaign have successfully lied about, and kept out of the campaign narrative.

In other words, as I’ve said, this is the MOST DANGEROUS “Politician” that I’ve ever seen in my 50 years of life, and the fact that he can garner, just like that, 45% of the general Sheeple population, shows that he is, in reality, a Hitler-like figure when it comes to mesmerizing the crowds of automatons that pass as the American public.

This guy, on a normal day, in America, should be regulated out on the fringes with David Duke and Pat Buchannon and Cynthia MiKinney and Ralph Nader; but in all liklihood, he will become President of the United States!

“jailbones”: be afraid, very afraid…

Dale in Atlanta on July 22, 2008 at 5:00 AM

From Gateway Pundit:

After meeting with General David Petraeus today, Barack Obama gave credit to the Sunni Awakening members and the Shia militia members for the success of the surge.

This explicates Obama’s lack of listening skills as well as his lack of judicial reasoning powers.

Obamarx has his agenda that is NOT OUR agenda.

On to Ramallah, Gabriel Malor @ Ace of Spades mentions Obama’s perimeter security provided by officially declared terrorists.

for Obama’s Ramallah visit, members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Fatah’s declared military wing, have been called upon by the PA to participate in the protection of Obama, particularly in securing the perimeter during a scheduled meeting with PA President Mahmoud Abbas.

Obama met with US troops in Iraq, and then thanks the Sunni Awakening and Shia members for the success of the American surge. For cooperating, that would make sense; but attributing the success’ responsibility without including thanks to the leadership and bulk of effort provided by American troops, what a jaundiced fallow man Obama is! Obama meets with Palestinian Authorities and we anticipate whom Obama will thank for the surge in Palestine/Israel, and how the violent surge is painted in gold, silver and baby blue to frame his logo.

Who wants to bet that the whispering interview Obama participated in from a-broad wasn’t scripted, memorized, and teleprompted for fluidity in performance. Who said it was broadcasted live? There’s always editing and airbrushing not only visual but aural imaging.

maverick muse on July 22, 2008 at 7:15 AM

Charle3s Krauthammer described this perfectly! He said Baracks answer was…gibberish! Made no sense. How true was that?

He is a moron!

becki51758 on July 22, 2008 at 7:27 AM

The Audacity of Inartfully Stupid…

sabbott on July 22, 2008 at 7:36 AM

A: Keep in mind… These kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. Hindsight is 20/20. But I think that, what I’m 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.

So, let me see if I can decipher this: Barack wouldn’t support the surge in retrospect, because supporting the surge at any point in his career, whether or not it was and is the best way to win the war in Iraq, would be political suicide in the eyes of the people Barack needed to support his political ambitions (namely, George Soros and moveon.org).

I think I get it now.

Spc Steve on July 22, 2008 at 7:44 AM

Dale,

Personally, I think he’s probably pretty areligious as an adult.

Couldn’t agree more. And as you also suggested, I know he’s not a Christian, since Christianity is not practiced at Trinity in any recognizable form. I think he views religion only as a tool for his political goals.

And yes, he’s a 1960s – 70s leftover from the black racist, Marxist movement, of that I am sure. Thus – Dohrn/Ayers/Alinsky. Why people are so inclined to ignore that shit is beyond me. I keep hearing that “we don’t need to go back there; just look at his policies today”, but I disagree. We need to go back there, too.

Jaibones on July 22, 2008 at 8:26 AM

“The Sunnis might have made the same decisions at that time. The Shii’as might have made some similar decisions based on political calculation. There was ethnic cleansing in Baghdad that actually took the violence level down,” he said.”

This inexperienced jackass CANNOT give acknowledge the success provided by the troops and therefore CANNOT acknowledge their huge accomplishments.

This from a no-load clown who has accomplished NOTHING in his life, other than give pretty speeches.

Every officer and non-com who participated in Iraqi Freedom, has accomplished more than Barack Obama and is more qualified for the Oval Office.

Barack Obama is a complete joke of a candidate and anyone who is even slightly considering voting for him this fall is severely delusional.

NoDonkey on July 22, 2008 at 8:40 AM

Obama is still not going to let facts obstruct him.

drjohn on July 22, 2008 at 8:57 AM

And yes, he’s a 1960s – 70s leftover from the black racist, Marxist movement, of that I am sure. Thus – Dohrn/Ayers/Alinsky. Why people are so inclined to ignore that shit is beyond me. I keep hearing that “we don’t need to go back there; just look at his policies today”, but I disagree. We need to go back there, too.

Jaibones on July 22, 2008 at 8:26 AM

You and me both; that he gets a “pass” on this from the In-the-tank MSM just….drives…..me……NUTS!

As for the whole Muslim thing; I hammer him relentlessly on it, because

a) he and his campaign have lied about it continually, like crazy…

b) as you said, he’s callously used his “conversion” to start his politically career, and to maintain it and ingratiate himself into the black community…

c) there are some “weird” things about Trinity; Jerimiah Wright himself used to be a member of the Nation of Islam! Did you know that? But yet, never any talk about his “convesion” to back to “Christianity”??

Very strange.

And you are right, it is NOT “Christianity” that is practiced there; the whole Marxist Black Liberation thing is VERY scary.

Also, there was a Blogger, who called in there a couple of months ago, and said “I want to join the Church, but I’m a “Muslim”, is that a problem??”

He was told “No, not a problem at all, we encourage Muslims to join here, because over 50% of our ‘Church’ congregation is ‘Mulsim’!”"

What kind of “Church” is that?

Also, another Blogger went into the Church itself, and into the Giftshop/Bookstore.

Over half the books for sale, were Islamically related, and the rest were Anti-White/Anti-Semitic/Anti-American/Pro-Hamas/Pro-Hezbollah/Marxist screeds!

Almost NO “Christian” literature at all!

Again, what kind of “Church” is that?

To emphasize, the reasons behind the apparent fascination and flirtations and relationship between Louis Farrakhan & the NOI, Muamar Qadhaffi, Jeremiah Wright, and how that ties into Barack Obama’s Marxist-Muslim upbringing, I bring your attention to this:

Islamic Socialism

and

Black People” in the Qhadffi’s “Little Green Book”

I’m the only person that I can tell of, who has made this very interesting, and I think compelling connection!

I think when you make the connection that Islam is a Marxist-based ideology in and of itself, the obvious Marxist orientation of “Black Liberation Theology”, the Anti-White/Anti-American/Anti-Semitic background of the NOI, Trinity “Church”, Jeremiah Wright & his Muslim background; Barack Obama’s self-radicalized as a Racist Anti-American/Anti-White Marxist with a Muslim background; when you tie the mutual fatal attraction of Islam and Nazism going back to WWII; and before that, with Kaiser Wihelm pretending to be a “Haji” and calling for Jihad against the Allies during WWI.; you have some very interesting History, that 99.9% of the American people are clueless about!

Dale in Atlanta on July 22, 2008 at 9:06 AM

So he voted against the surge and kinda progress; so he is gonna be against Iraq regardless of actual proof of progress?

He confuses me.

Branch Rickey on July 22, 2008 at 9:29 AM

becki51758 on July 22, 2008 at 7:27 AM

So Barack can’t even learn Newspeak without revisionism gibberish.

maverick muse on July 22, 2008 at 9:37 AM

I keep hearing that “we don’t need to go back there; just look at his policies today”, but I disagree. We need to go back there, too.

Jaibones on July 22, 2008 at 8:26 AM

Don’t miss their nuance. We don’t need to go back there BECAUSE back there is in his policies today. Neo-retro-modernism.

maverick muse on July 22, 2008 at 9:39 AM

NoDonkey on July 22, 2008 at 8:40 AM

Our young adult son summed it up, “Obama is a fool, and only fools believe him.”

maverick muse on July 22, 2008 at 9:41 AM

Interesting. Two pages of comments and hardly any from the libs explaining what Barack really meant.

I guess it is difficult to untwist a pretzel without breaking it.

Yoop on July 22, 2008 at 9:49 AM

drjohn on July 22, 2008 at 8:57 AM

Obama refutes the existence of any fact.

Thank you, Bill Clinton, for your ground breaking defamation of the Presidency, defying the meaning of to be “depending upon what is is”; and for your final explication of your criminal behavior as President, “Because I could.” Obamarx, if nothing else, is the student of every slick Willy gaining means to assassinate all mentors under his bus road trip to Mount Parnassus.

Why does Obama FAIL his onus to produce his Constitutionally required proof of eligibility to run for POTUS? Because he could? ONLY if you let him get away with it. Give him one inch, lose our Constitution.

PS, OBAMA:
If the democrats had it to do over again, the vast majority would never have voted for you!

maverick muse on July 22, 2008 at 9:54 AM

It sounds like he’s heading towards some Kanjorski-esque theory here by which the Democrats actually deserve partial credit for the surge by spooking Bush with threats of defunding the war. If they hadn’t lit a fire under his ass, you see, he wouldn’t have been motivated to do exactly the opposite of what they wanted him to do.

I believe there is a part of Michael Yon’s book which suggests just that to a point. For too long the Bush Admin. and indeed much for the right-wing element in this country which supported our troops effort were in denial about the civil war in Iraq. Such thinking prevented us from carrying out the surge which was so greatly needed for so long. On the opposite end, we have the left-wing which wanted to exploit every setback and casualty to force a retreat thus gaining them a political victory at the expense of our troops. As wrong as the left in this country was in trying to force a retreat (hell, their actions were borderline treasonous IMO), their efforts did to a point force Pres. Bush to take extra steps (i.e. the surge) in Iraq.

Yakko77 on July 22, 2008 at 9:58 AM

For too long the Bush Admin. and indeed much for the right-wing element in this country which supported our troops effort were in denial about the civil war in Iraq. Such thinking prevented us from carrying out the surge which was so greatly needed for so long.

I would disagree a tad; I think the resistance to a “surge” was one person, and one person only, and that was former SecDef Rumsfield.

His whole approach to both Iraq & Afghanistan, were that these were low-effort, low-priority affairs, that required minimimal support and investment from him and the Military services; in other words, they both could be carried out, and won “on the cheap”.

Much more important, in his view, was fighting and winning the Political wars within the Pentagon, then ongoing in his Transformation of the Military from “heavy” to “light” fighting forces, steamlining acquisition, and knocking the US Army down a peg while building up the Marine Corps.

Bottomline, I think Rumsfield was asleep at the switch; and really wanted to get out of Iraq & Afghanistan, and not commit any more forces, for him, they were always a distraction that Bush wanted; he wanted to be engaged in a Knife fight with the Politicians in the Pentagon and win those battles.

I think that is closer to the actual truth, if you research it.

Dale in Atlanta on July 22, 2008 at 10:06 AM

This guy is really starting to grate on me.
Or, maybe it’s the media?

He shows nothing but the lack of good sense and the media shows nothing but adoration.
It’s really sick.

gatewaypundit on July 22, 2008 at 10:11 AM

“Knowing now of its success, I would not support the surge because if I did I would not be here answering this question. The issue is “me” – not the war; what is best for “me” – not you. “Me” is never wrong.”Me” is change and hope. “Me” is the future. “Me” can only go back to the future.

Not only is my left leg tingling, but so is my brain.

He is going to implode. Please. He is going to implode. Please. He is going to implode.

Rod on July 22, 2008 at 10:29 AM

Knowing full well that change of strategy leads to success, he is going to insist on his original failed policy/direction.

Is Obama fit to be a US Senator? He is not even fit to raise his children.

Sir Napsalot on July 22, 2008 at 10:51 AM

He doesnt have a crystal ball!! Doesnt everyone know that? :)

What I want to know is…where is this fella with a crystal ball, because he would do a better job than Obama.

We need to elect him!

becki51758 on July 22, 2008 at 10:55 AM

There was ethnic cleansing in Baghdad that actually took the violence level down,” he said.

Huh? ‘Scuse me???

The question was what would Baghdad look like if the Democrats had successfully prevented the Surge. Rather than admitting the disaster that would have happened he allows that maybe the Sunnis and Shiites would have..who knows what he’s saying?…and then he says the above.

That the violence was going down due to the ethnic cleansing. Does he mean that this is the good side of genocide…the “it’s a dark cloud that doesn’t have a silver lining” approach?

This guy’s nuts.

You’re going to elect this guy?

Blaise on July 22, 2008 at 11:35 AM

Isn’t this the same guy who blasted Hillary for not calling her vote to authorize the war a “mistake”?? At least he’s keeping it consistent, he wants it both ways, always.

jtorres138 on July 22, 2008 at 11:45 AM

found this…

Obama: Send More Troops to Afghanistan

Jonathan D. Salant
Bloomberg
July 21, 2008

Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said today that U.S. combat troops should be shifted to Afghanistan from Iraq.

“This has to be our central focus, the central front of our battle against terrorism,” Obama said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” program. “One of the biggest mistakes we’ve made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here.”

Obama, who opposed the war with Iraq, said that conflict distracted the U.S. from the task of capturing al-Qaeda leaders and rebuilding Afghanistan after the militant Islamic Taliban regime was ousted.

“We made a strategic error, and it’s one that we’re going to pay for, and unfortunately the people of Afghanistan have paid for as well,” the Illinois senator said. “But we now have an opportunity to correct that problem.”

Obama, 46, was interviewed in Afghanistan, where he arrived yesterday. He is on a six-day tour that also will include stops in Iraq, Israel and Western Europe. He spent last night at Bagram Air Force Base outside Kabul.

RMC1618 on July 22, 2008 at 12:07 PM

BHO – Seldom right, never in doubt.

jl on July 22, 2008 at 12:18 PM

07-22-08 9:30 PTZ

10 pictures of Obama on this site
2 pictures of McCain

A force for change.

Ernest on July 22, 2008 at 12:39 PM

“You see the activity taking place, the people in the shops, the traffic on the streets, clearly there’s been an enormous improvement,” he (Obama) said.

Is he describing downtown Detroit?

Sir Napsalot on July 22, 2008 at 1:00 PM

“Is he describing downtown Detroit?”

Baghdad is safer than Detroit.

DC has now instituted check points in some of the worst neighborhoods. 3 civilians were killed in the Trinidad neighborhood last weekend and that’s pretty typical.

And of course the media is blaming the Democrats in charge.

Oh wait, they’re not.

Tens of thousands of US citizens murdered in the streets of cities controlled by Democrats since 2003, no story and no blame for the Democrat in charge of the cities.

3,000 dead military members who are fighting a war of necessity – Bush’s fault!

Why aren’t inner city mayors attending all of the funerals of murdered citizens? Are they afraid of getting shot?

NoDonkey on July 22, 2008 at 1:46 PM

I hate this P.O.S. more every day. That’s right… hate.

As well you should. He deserves it.

If he held all these imbecelic beliefs as a private citizen, it would be wrong.

But this circus clown has the ability to affect our lives and by his complete incompetence and inexperience, threaten our lifestyles and our very lives.

If Obama doesn’t realize that he has no business near the Oval Office due to his complete lack of experience, then he’s just plain stupid.

If Obama does realize that he’s not fit for the office but pursues it anyway, he’s evil.

Either way, Obama sucks.

NoDonkey on July 22, 2008 at 3:05 PM

There’s more to his answer but they cut him off there; the rest, hopefully, will be played on Nightline. more coherent.

Fixed that.

4shoes on July 22, 2008 at 4:01 PM

Dale in Atlanta on July 22, 2008 at 9:06 AM

I agree with you Dale, I read the Black Liberation Church’s “theology” and it sounded like it could have been taken from a page in a Hadith somewhere.
And didn’t I read somewhere that Obama’s brother is a muslim? Pretty sure I did.
He behaves as if his past has no meaning, drops his Church and mentor of 20 yrs. when they’re no longer useful to him politically, and yes, the MSM gives him a pass on everything. It’s bizarre and frightening.

4shoes on July 22, 2008 at 4:17 PM

What a rooky. He sure has shown us over the past year how bad he is on thinking things through. Not someone that should be President that is for sure.

diaphanous on July 22, 2008 at 5:00 PM

And didn’t I read somewhere that Obama’s brother is a muslim? Pretty sure I did.

Obama himself said it in one of his two FICTIONAL “Biographies”!

Dale in Atlanta on July 22, 2008 at 5:00 PM

sorry, FICTIONAL “Autobiographies”…

Dale in Atlanta on July 22, 2008 at 5:01 PM

Q: If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?
A: No

“Change that you can believe in!”

Er . . .

Or at least a steadfast refusal to learn from past mistakes!

seanrobins on July 22, 2008 at 9:38 PM

The key to understanding Obama’s positions on the war is to remember that Democrats view the War on Terror in exactly the same way that most Republican politicians view global warming. They don’t really believe in it, but they feel they must make ritual gestures of concern about it, to preserve their political viability. They rely almost exclusively on advisors to tell them about it, but have no intention of understanding it themselves. They would really like to change the subject as quickly as possible, and they resent being dragged back to it. The difference, of course, is that global warming really is a phantasm.

Doctor Zero on July 22, 2008 at 10:33 PM

I wonder what’s going through the mind of Barack Obama right now…

“I thought this was the endless war. I thought this war was lost? I thought we shouldn’t be fighting their civil war. I thought success in Iraq wasn’t possible. I thought the surge would have had the opposite effect. I thought I had judgment…I was wrong.”

DanStark on July 23, 2008 at 12:01 AM

“If I had it to do again,
given 20/20 hindsight,
I WOULD NOT CHANGE A THING!”
Presidential HOpeful BHO

maverick muse on July 23, 2008 at 7:41 AM

How do you write a book called The Audacity of Hope and then run for President on a platform of Hope and Change?

Doesn’t that mean he threw his own book under the bus?

TheCulturalist on July 23, 2008 at 12:27 PM

Again, I cannot understand why the Republicans are so inept at countering Obama’s nonsense even though he gives them every opportunity.

He calls Afghanistan central to the war on terror. It is not, nor has it ever been. Afghanistan was where Osama Bin Ladin happend to be hold up when we went after him. We attacked Al-Qaeda in Somalia first so, according to Obama’s logic, Somalia is central. So the only thing significant about a country still in the dark ages with no strategic value and no resources is that’s were Bin Ladin happened to be when we went after him.

There are two countries central to the war on terror: Iraq and Pakistan.
Strategically, Iraq is important; Afghanistan is not.
If Obama can’t understand that Iraq is infinitely more important than Afghanistan then he totally lacks the ability to look at the world strategically, a complete disaster for a guy who wants to be president and a danger to the United States.

But it gets worse. Obama wants to move more troops to Afghanistan, a surge. Why haven’t the conservative media not pointed out the fact that Obama refuses to admit the success of the surge and yet he wants to assure success in Afghanistan with a surge. You have a candidate that running for office who is making irrational statements. This should scare the American public. In this case, fear itself isn’t the only thing to fear; it’s an irrational candidate.
And his logic gets even worse. He says if we pull troops out of Iraq, we can use our resources to help the US economy. By that logic, why isn’t he advocating pulling our troops out of Afghanistan to help our economy? He says pulling troops out of Iraq will force the Iraqi people to solve their own problems. By that logic, why wouldn’t pulling troops out of Afghanistan force the Afghan people to solve their problems.
The guy is making no sense at all. His logic is so bad conservatives should be able to expose him for the irrational, dangerous person he is.

under on July 23, 2008 at 10:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 2