Not Anyone Senator Obama
by Big Dog on Sep 5, 2008 at 06:10 Political
Senator Barack Obama opposed the surge in Iraq and he said that it would not work and, in fact, have the opposite effect. It is correct that, Obama did not believe that additional warriors would be successful. He had to believe this because his entire claim to having Commander in Chief credentials involves his opposition to the war and the surge that has been so effective.
Barack Obama would not admit that he was wrong and failed to call the surge successful. He said that he has always said (and let him be clear) that there is no doubt that our troops would be successful but that Iraq had not met the benchmarks set forth for the country by our Congress in order to guarantee failure. Iraq has met nearly all the goals and has a higher success rate in passing through the measures than the do nothing Congress of the last year.
Obama was interviewed by Bill O’Reilly on Fox News and he said that the surge was more successful than ANYONE could imagine:
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.”
~snip~
“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.” Fox
No Barry, the surge has been more successful than you hoped but not more successful than ANYONE could have imagined. Those, like John McCain who pushed for it, anticipated that it would be successful from the start. People with actual military experience (and not the ones on your payroll) knew that it would be successful. You voted against it Barry because you did not think it would work. In fact, you banked on it not working so that it would further your career. The “anyones” out there who know something about the military already knew.
It was not a success beyond our wildest dreams because we knew more than you. We put country ahead of party and politics and supported the men and women who fight for this nation. We anticipated success while you prayed for defeat.
So no Senator, not everyone was surprised, just those with little faith in our military and those invested in defeat.
You sir, are both.
“We anticipated success while you prayed for defeat.”
I’d like you to show one shred of evidence that Obama prayed for defeat. This is one of the most ridiculous slanders from conservatives and yet despite evidence many of you repeat it.
You hit the nail right on the head. I look forward to (if fact I expect) the TV from the McCain campaign. Just a quick video clip of Slick Barry making the statement “the troop surge in Iraq has been more successful than anyone could have imagined”…fade to black and then a still profile headshot of John McCain with the voiceover, “really Senator? Not for a leader with real vision and judgement”.
Needs polish but you get the idea.
What exactly are you whining about Adam? Pick another word if “prayed” bothers you. We know how liberals feel about God and religion. The democrats (Reid, Pelosi, Shumer, Durbin and of course Obama) desperately wanted things to go bad in Iraq right from the start. They hoped, desired, wished, begged, pleaded…etc….that Iraq and especially the surge would fail.
What evidence do you have that the democrats supported the surge and wanted it to succeed (other than Joe Lieberman)? The fact that they voted to support the Iraq war? (they were for the war before they were against it)…just words…
We support the troops but don’t support the war…yeah…and I’m a Red Sox fan but don’t want them to win the World Series.
Maybe you’re upset because you feel Big Dog stole a classic democrat tactic…doesn’t matter if something is true, just keep repeating it over and over…with the help of the media…and people will believe it.
“Maybe you’re upset because you feel Big Dog stole a classic democrat tactic…doesn’t matter if something is true, just keep repeating it over and over…with the help of the media…and people will believe it.”
So you admit it’s not true?
Reading comprehension was not your strong suit in school, was it Adam?
“Maybe you’re upset because YOU FEEL Big Dog stole a CLASSIC DEMOCRAT TACTIC…
Does that clear it up for you? Typical liberal though…you don’t “think” you “feel”.
I know it’s true. I know it because I actually pay attention to what the left says.
The problem is that many conservatives cannot debate this war in terms of reality. In reality the line was drawn between groups who differed in opinion over whether this was a necessary war to start with, whether we were losing sight of the real goals of a war against terror, whether adding more troops would do any good or would drawing down troops make the Iraqis stand up faster.
All of these things and more need to be debated openly and honestly but that doesn’t happen does it? I wonder why? Instead the debate becomes who wants the troops to win and who wants the troops to lose? Who loves America, and who hates it? Which party supports the troops and which doesn’t?
Yeah, that’s a real useful debate, let me tell you that for certain. This is one “typical liberal” saying up front that I refuse to debate you in terms of the illogical and deceitful frames you and other conservatives have placed on this conversation about the Iraq war but that I will however point out when you argue with no basis in reality.
[…] [Discuss This Topic with Big Dog] Share This Article With Others: […]
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 09/05/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
A lot of people misinterpret the meaning behind the statement “I support the troops but not the war.” NO ONE wants to lose the war. We want to win, we HAVE TO win.
The statement only means that one didn’t support going to Iraq in the first place, but knows that since we went there we need to see it through.
Also, BOTH parties use slander, BOTH parties manipulate facts and quotes, BOTH parties flip flop on issues.
And as much as disagree with Senator Obama’s initial oposition to the surge I give him props for the wording he chose during the interview.
“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated.” Is a well worded response, regardless of the politics behind it.
Clever calculation Mr. Obama.
And hey, if we’re going to talk about flip flopping what about Palin’s for the bridge/against the bridge stance???
I just finished a post on this where I said almost the same as you did. The only people who are surprised the surge worked are those who wanted it to fail.
Some of us believe in the military and all they can achieve when given a chance. My only regret is that this war was fought in a politically correct manner which handicapped our troops from the begining.
The surge did what I expected it to, I always believed that the troops would come through, but then again, I don’t have the contempt for the military that Barack Obama has.
Please don’t be distracted by the surge thing.
What was startling and scary about the interview is that Obama said that Iran was dangerous but not involved with terror. Iran has been named the largest supporter of terrorism by the State Department. For a number of years.
He also tried to explain problems there as a Sunni/Shia thing. That has always been a red herring thrown into the pile by people who haven’t the slightest idea of what is going on. Quick – when was the last major clash between Shia and Sunni for religious reasons? I don’t know either. I’m not into medieval history in the Middle East.
The mean is scary stupid. Dangerous.