Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 9/4/2008 1:10:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/4/2008 1:13:06 PM EDT by The_Macallan]


The troop surge in Iraq has been more successful than anyone could have imagined, Barack Obama conceded Thursday in his first-ever interview on FOX News’ “The O’Reilly Factor.”

As recently as July, the Democratic presidential candidate declined to rate the surge a success, but said it had helped reduce violence in the country. On Thursday, Obama acknowledged the 2007 increase in U.S. troops has benefited the Iraqi people.

“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

WRONG YOU ASSBAG!!!

John McCain anticipated it would succeed - that's why he was ALWAYS pushing for it from the very beginning!

YOU on the other hand were WRONG about the surge - and both our country and Iraq is FAR better off because we DIDN'T take your advice!


Obama's statements regarding the surge in Iraq:

January 2007 on the "Today" show:
* "We're not going to baby sit a civil war."

January 10, 2007, on MSNBC:
* "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

January 10, 2007 on CNN.
* "I did not see anything in the speech or anything in the run- up to the speech that provides evidence that an additional 15,000 to 20,000 more U.S. troops is going to make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that's taking place there."

January 14, 2007 on "Face The Nation":
* "We can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground."

July 18, 2007, on the Today show:
* "My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now."

July 20, 2007 in New Hampshire:
* "Here's what we know. The surge has not worked."

September 13, 2007 at the Democratic Debate:
* "After putting an additional 30,000 troops in, far longer & more troops than the president had initially said, we have gone from a horrendous situation of violence in Iraq to the same intolerable levels of violence that we had back in June of 2006. So, essentially, after all this we're back where we were 15 months ago... So, I think it is fair to say that the president has simply tried to gain another six months to continue on the same course that he's been on for several years now. It is a course that will not succeed."

November 11, 2007 on "Meet The Press":
* "...not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there."

January 5, 2008:
* "I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence. "

January 29, 2008:
* "Tonight Pres. Bush said that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that's just not true. Yes, our valiant soldiers have helped reduce the violence. But let there be no doubt—the Iraqi government has failed to seize the moment to reach compromises necessary for an enduring peace. That was what we were told the surge was all about. So the only way we're finally going to pressure the Iraqis to reconcile and take responsibility for their future is to immediately begin a responsible withdrawal."

July 14, 2008 in a NYTimes Op-Ed:
* "In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness. But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge."


Obama was WRONG for opposing the surge.

He was WRONG about the surge, WRONG about his reasons, WRONG about his predictions and actually LIED about his position during the debates, continued to LIE about his opposition to the surge in his recent NYTimes Op-Ed - and was completely blind, deaf and dumb about the success of the surge and how WRONG he was to oppose it.

ONLY John McCain was right on the surge - and right from the very start.




Link Posted: 9/4/2008 1:17:49 PM EDT
Obama HOPES most of his followers ignore this CHANGE.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 1:19:24 PM EDT
How many Obama "fact checking" articles are we going to see on CNN, MSNBC, Yahoo, and The Daily Show tomorrow???
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 1:20:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/4/2008 1:21:31 PM EDT by America-first]
What Obama should have said is that "nobodies" such as himself didn't think the surge would work.

McCain, along with The President of the United States as well as those actually calling the shots believed it would.

Obama has just illustrated why his ass should never be allowed to sit in the big chair.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 1:21:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/4/2008 1:22:32 PM EDT by Max_Mike]
You guys don’t get it…

This is brilliant. Obama goes on Fox on McCain’s night and admits the obvious while stealing McCain’s thunder.



O’Reilly ought to be ahamed being willing used like this but he will not be.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 1:23:28 PM EDT
This guy is delusional and dangerous.  I fear what could happen under his form of "leadership."
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 1:24:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/4/2008 1:25:58 PM EDT by America-first]

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
You guys don’t get it… this is brilliant. Obama goes on Fox on McCain’s night and admits the obvious while stealing McCain’s thunder.



O’Reilly ought to be ahamed but he will not be.


I'm not an O'Reilly fan; but what if he puts Obama in the hot seat for his lack of foresight and experience in military matters.

And points out his flip flopping on the efficacy of the surge.

O'Reilly has the perfect opportunity to rake Obama over the coals on this issue; let's see if he uses it or pussies out.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 1:25:47 PM EDT
So I am to conclude the BHO piece is taped? I am surprised they did it that way. Now I guess they are going to claim selective editing.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 1:26:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By America-first:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
You guys don’t get it… this is brilliant. Obama goes on Fox on McCain’s night and admits the obvious while stealing McCain’s thunder.



O’Reilly ought to be ahamed but he will not be.


I'm not an O'Reilly fan; but what if he puts Obama in the hot seat for his lack of foresight and experience in military matters.

And points out his flip flopping on the efficacy of the surge.

O'Reilly has the perfect opportunity to rake Obama over the coals on this issue; let's see if he uses it or pussies out.


I'm going with that option.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 1:27:01 PM EDT
Obama wants "on the job training" as CIC.
As Palin said last night if Obama needs help in making national security issues he should just call John McCain.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 1:27:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RenegadeX:
So I am to conclude the BHO piece is taped? I am surprised they did it that way. Now I guess they are going to claim selective editing.


I'd like to see O'Reilly pick Obama apart live, without a teleprompter he'll crumble like a rotten melon.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 1:28:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rcoers:

Originally Posted By America-first:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
You guys don’t get it… this is brilliant. Obama goes on Fox on McCain’s night and admits the obvious while stealing McCain’s thunder.



O’Reilly ought to be ahamed but he will not be.


I'm not an O'Reilly fan; but what if he puts Obama in the hot seat for his lack of foresight and experience in military matters.

And points out his flip flopping on the efficacy of the surge.

O'Reilly has the perfect opportunity to rake Obama over the coals on this issue; let's see if he uses it or pussies out.


I'm going with that option.


Unfortunately I think you're right and O'Reilly will engage in ass kissing.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 1:30:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By America-first:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
You guys don’t get it… this is brilliant. Obama goes on Fox on McCain’s night and admits the obvious while stealing McCain’s thunder.



O’Reilly ought to be ahamed but he will not be.


I'm not an O'Reilly fan; but what if he puts Obama in the hot seat for his lack of foresight and experience in military matters.

And points out his flip flopping on the efficacy of the surge.

O'Reilly has the perfect opportunity to rake Obama over the coals on this issue; let's see if he uses it or pussies out.


I'll bet O'Reilly pussies out or doesn't push for clear answers.  I think O'Reilly has lost some of his luster.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 1:30:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By America-first:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
You guys don’t get it… this is brilliant. Obama goes on Fox on McCain’s night and admits the obvious while stealing McCain’s thunder.



O’Reilly ought to be ahamed but he will not be.
I'm not an O'Reilly fan; but what if he puts Obama in the hot seat for his lack of foresight and experience in military matters.

And points out his flip flopping on the efficacy of the surge.

O'Reilly has the perfect opportunity to rake Obama over the coals on this issue; let's see if he uses it or pussies out.

But he WON'T.

O'Reilly will be nothing but cordial and polite and calm and "objective" because he wants all of Obama's followers who will undoubtedly tune in to his show for the first time to see Bill O'Reilly as a nonthreatening host so that they will start watching him more now.

This is not about Barack Obama - it's about BILL O'REILLY.

Link Posted: 9/4/2008 1:32:11 PM EDT
see obamas body language ? he is NOT comfortable!

and the dem,s did not want the surge to work! it would hurt them!
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 1:38:05 PM EDT
How could it NOT work? More US troops to kill insurgents sounds like a winning plan as they aren't spread as thin. Hell, even I knew it would work.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 1:40:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/4/2008 1:42:19 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By America-first:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
You guys don’t get it… this is brilliant. Obama goes on Fox on McCain’s night and admits the obvious while stealing McCain’s thunder.



O’Reilly ought to be ahamed but he will not be.


I'm not an O'Reilly fan; but what if he puts Obama in the hot seat for his lack of foresight and experience in military matters.

And points out his flip flopping on the efficacy of the surge.

O'Reilly has the perfect opportunity to rake Obama over the coals on this issue; let's see if he uses it or pussies out.


O’Reilly has already admitted Obama dictated the time of this interview what other concessions did Obama get?

This is intended and designed by Obama’s campaign to take McCain night and bounce away.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 1:41:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By EXCG_Steve:

Originally Posted By America-first:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
You guys don’t get it… this is brilliant. Obama goes on Fox on McCain’s night and admits the obvious while stealing McCain’s thunder.



O’Reilly ought to be ahamed but he will not be.


I'm not an O'Reilly fan; but what if he puts Obama in the hot seat for his lack of foresight and experience in military matters.

And points out his flip flopping on the efficacy of the surge.

O'Reilly has the perfect opportunity to rake Obama over the coals on this issue; let's see if he uses it or pussies out.


I'll bet O'Reilly pussies out or doesn't push for clear answers.  I think O'Reilly has lost some of his luster.


Did he ever have any luster?
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 1:41:54 PM EDT
I can not wait to watch this tonight.  
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 1:42:41 PM EDT
Good stuff posted in the OP...Thx Mac!
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 1:42:51 PM EDT
Senator Obama, the DNA test results came back-you aren't the father of the surge.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 1:43:38 PM EDT
Obama said that even if he knew the Surge would work, he would still have opposed it.  He would rather please his lunatic base than see America win its wars, there's no explanation of saying something like that.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 1:45:05 PM EDT
I predict O'Reilly will be VERY easy on him.  It will look a lot like an interview on Tyra or any other hard hitting interviews obama has done.  O'Reilly is an ass clown.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 1:46:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/4/2008 1:47:25 PM EDT by Fingerpicker]
“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge.


Translation - "Nobody", meaning dedicated liberals, thought that adding 20,000 more troops would help because they all view it as America sending 20,000 more murderers and baby rapers to Iraq.

Nothing more. Nothing less.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 1:48:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
Obama said that even if he knew the Surge would work, he would still have opposed it.  He would rather please his lunatic base than see America win its wars, there's no explanation of saying something like that.


Agreed.  Principals are fine, as long as you aren't responsible for other people.  No one with that mentality should ever hold public office.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 1:48:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/4/2008 1:48:23 PM EDT by Beltfed]
Judging from the short preview I just saw, I have a not so great feeling that O'Reilly is going to come off as one big vagina with regard to the questions.

Hope I'm wrong.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 1:54:46 PM EDT
Leadership is doing what is right, even when everyone else believes otherwise.

Using that criteria, who is the leader here?
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 1:59:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/4/2008 2:02:36 PM EDT by SilentType]
But the Great Obama was against the Iraq invasion when he was in the Illinois State Senate.

He will say that he was right about that decision.

He will say, as he has been saying, that nobody knows what would have happened had his plan of an immediate withdrawal of US forces had been taken.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what is wrong with that argument.

Senator Obama never had to vote on whether to approve the Invasion of Iraq.  If nobody can say what would have happened had we followed his advice to withdraw from Iraq then nobody can say how he would have voted had he been a member of the US Senate. He couldn't vote "Present" on that one.

While we can not say for certain what would have happened had we withdrawn from Iraq as suggested by Senator Obama we do know that the military commanders on the ground stated CLEARLY that such an action would have grave consequences for the security of Iraq, the region, and our interests in the region.

We know that General Petreaus has decades of military experience, is a graduate of the War College, a graduate of West Point, a decorated four star General, and the coauthor of the US Army's Counter Insurgency Manual.  We know that General Petreaus is on the ground EVERY single day in Iraq.  We know that Obama has not one day of military experience. Has no formal training in military affairs or strategy.  We know that Senator Obama armed with this total lack of military experience and knowledge refuses to take the advice of General Petreaus.


Below Obama in his own words.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJbsQ7oUQWw

www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJbsQ7oUQWw

Obama was wrong about the Surge.

Obama was wrong in how he addressed the conflict in Georgia.

Obama is wrong about the economy.

Obama is wrong about his stance on national defense that includes slashing Tens of Billions from the defense budget.

Obama is wrong on missile defense stating they are unproven systems.

Obama is wrong that Iran does not present a threat to the United States.

Obama is wrong about Israel.

There isn't a single damn thing Obama has ever been right about.

Senator Obama is not only the worse Presidential Candidate in the history of this country he is a Clear and Present Danger to the national security of this nation.

Link Posted: 9/4/2008 2:02:27 PM EDT
O'Reilly is an egotistical, self aggrandizing blowhard. And as far as the Surge is concerned, TF145 had as much to do with the reduction in violence as the troop surge.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 2:08:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/4/2008 2:09:34 PM EDT by SilentType]

Originally Posted By thebomber:
O'Reilly is an egotistical, self aggrandizing blowhard. And as far as the Surge is concerned, TF145 had as much to do with the reduction in violence as the troop surge.


While the efforts of TF145 are to be hailed as certainly contributing to the success I doubt any military commander would say that they were equal in some way to the increase in troops along with the changed strategy that made up the "Surge."

It wasn't just more troops for the "Surge" it was a change in tactics that included securing key districts throughout Baghdad where sectarian violence had risen.  That new strategy allowed restored security and restored confidence in the Coalition's commitment to Iraq that in turn provided TF145 the necessary intelligence from varioius informants and cooperation from local people that lead to their successful operations.

Link Posted: 9/4/2008 2:18:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thebomber:
O'Reilly is an egotistical, self aggrandizing blowhard. And as far as the Surge is concerned, TF145 had as much to do with the reduction in violence as the troop surge.

I disagree. Quantity was needed.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 2:19:31 PM EDT
The fact is on his first major test of leadership on a national stage Obama failed miserably. He had a choice to support the surge strategy or oppose it and he chose to oppose it to appease his lunatic base. He could not have been more wrong and yet he can barely bring himself to admit his policy was a failure. If he had been in charge the stabilization of Iraq would have probably never occurred and the disparate parts (Biden's partition plan) would be under sphere's of influence of Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Western Iraq may have become another Lebanon and the Kurds, our loyal allies, would have been under serious threat from Turkey.

They need to hammer this home in every debate.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 2:36:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By monkey_AR:
The fact is on his first major test of leadership on a national stage Obama failed miserably. He had a choice to support the surge strategy or oppose it and he chose to oppose it to appease his lunatic base. He could not have been more wrong and yet he can barely bring himself to admit his policy was a failure. If he had been in charge the stabilization of Iraq would have probably never occurred and the disparate parts (Biden's partition plan) would be under sphere's of influence of Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Western Iraq may have become another Lebanon and the Kurds, our loyal allies, would have been under serious threat from Turkey.

They need to hammer this home in every debate.


The worse thing is that even though it did work Senator Obama still refuses to take the advice of General Petreaus.

I'm sorry, but General Petreaus was right.

General Petreaus has made the "Surge" a success.

Yet Obama still refuses to listen to the man.

Link Posted: 9/4/2008 2:43:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SilentType:
The worse thing is that even though it did work Senator Obama still refuses to take the advice of General Petreaus.

I'm sorry, but General Petreaus was right.

General Petreaus has made the "Surge" a success.

Yet Obama still refuses to listen to the man.



Well the nutroots would exploded if he did listen to  "General Betrayus"
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 2:46:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Well the nutroots would exploded if he did listen to  "General Betrayus"


It's got to be frustrating to be General Petreaus and have this man with zero idea about what the hell he's talking about tell you thanks for the advice and then say he thinks you're wrong.

I mean Petreaus actually has drawn up pictures and graphs to help the idiot understand and he still doesn't get it.

Link Posted: 9/4/2008 2:54:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SilentType:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Well the nutroots would exploded if he did listen to  "General Betrayus"


It's got to be frustrating to be General Petreaus and have this man with zero idea about what the hell he's talking about tell you thanks for the advice and then say he thinks you're wrong.

I mean Petreaus actually has drawn up pictures and graphs to help the idiot understand and he still doesn't get it.



Oh he gets it but he does not care... he would allow American servicemen to die and Iraq to fall apart and become a terrorist base of operations with the potential for disaster that is just to satisfy his loon base.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 2:54:41 PM EDT
I bet it will be a lame interview anyway. There's no way obama would have gone on without shitloads of pre-conditions. Probably was even given the list of questions ahead of time.

I wish oreilly would screw with him. Is it a live show? Ask him different questions and laugh when he either stumbles through them or gets up and walks away.

Taped?  It would be pretty amusing if they decided not to air it until after McCain's speech.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 3:19:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GUNSFORHIRE:
Good stuff posted in the OP...Thx Mac!


Yet again.  I always read his threads.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 3:41:48 PM EDT
The surge has to be a failure, because the Dems are afraid Petraeus WON'T do a Sheridan and would be an 800 LB gorilla of a GOP candidate if he decides to run in say 2016 or 2020.
Link Posted: 9/4/2008 3:59:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SilentType:

Originally Posted By thebomber:
O'Reilly is an egotistical, self aggrandizing blowhard. And as far as the Surge is concerned, TF145 had as much to do with the reduction in violence as the troop surge.


While the efforts of TF145 are to be hailed as certainly contributing to the success I doubt any military commander would say that they were equal in some way to the increase in troops along with the changed strategy that made up the "Surge."

It wasn't just more troops for the "Surge" it was a change in tactics that included securing key districts throughout Baghdad where sectarian violence had risen.  That new strategy allowed restored security and restored confidence in the Coalition's commitment to Iraq that in turn provided TF145 the necessary intelligence from varioius informants and cooperation from local people that lead to their successful operations.



I guess I didn;t intend on being taken literally. It was me not you. What i really intended to convey was that the surge (troop increase) and the efforts of TF145 had a synergistic effect. Your points, as well as what Dport said are correct (IMHO).

Bomber
Top Top