Betsy's Page
HOMEAdvance your career by earning a masters degree
online.
Betsy neither necessarily uses,
nor endorses,
the products advertised on this site.
Advance your career by earning a masters degree
online.
The truth about Avesil
Wikio
Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights
Comments from an AP history
and government teacher in Raleigh, NC.
e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com
Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you.
Site Feed
The truth about Avesil
Wikio
Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights
Comments from an AP history
and government teacher in Raleigh, NC.
e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com
Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you.
Site Feed
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Obama without a transcript
ABC interviewed Obama for Nightline and asked him, if he'd known then what he knows now about the success of the surge would he have supported the surge last year. See if his answer is at all coherent.Q: If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?So Obama had to oppose the surge because he didn't like the Bush administration. I suppose that, by broader issues, he means the fighting in Afghanistan. But how would it have improved Afghanistan if Iraq had descended even deeper into the bloody chaos that it was experiencing before the surge began? I know that no politician likes to admit that he made a mistake before, but it's clear that Obama's vaunted judgment was totally wrong about the surge and he won't admit that because he'd have to admit that McCain was right and he was wrong on a national security issue that they both had to vote on.
Obama: No. Because, keep in mind that —
Q: You wouldn’t?
Obama: Keep in mind, these kind of hypotheticals are very difficult. You know hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one I just disagreed with.
He admits that it was a success, but he'd still oppose it. Does he just prefer failure?
Obama says he doesn't want to answer hypotheticals. Well, isn't the whole premise of his superior judgment to having opposed taking out Saddam Hussein really a hypothetical that presupposes that it would have been better not to have gone to war in Iraq?
And then he says this about his meeting with General Petraeus.Obama said that in his meeting with Petraeus, the general discussed his "deep concerns" about "a timetable that doesn't take into account what they anticipate might be a change in conditions."Actually, General Petraeus also has the job of balancing risks in Afghanistan and Iraq. He's head of CENTCOM which includes both wars. Of course, Obama wasn't there for that vote so maybe he's unaware of it. (McCain wasn't there either, but I bet he knows the scope of Central Command's authority.)
"My job is to think about the national security interests as a whole and to weigh and balance risks in Afghanistan and Iraq," Obama said. "Their job is just to get the job done here and I completely understand that.
Obama still doesn't want to say that the surge achieved both political as well as military goals."I think it is indisputable that because of great work that they have done as well as the unbelievable work that the troops have done we've made significant progress in terms of reducing violence in Iraq," he said.Well, what does he think caused those political factors occur? He acts as if they were totally independent of the military success and that the increased security that led to the decrease in sectarian violence had nothing to do with the political success we've seen in Iraq.
However, Obama would not attribute the decreased violence entirely to the troop surge, which he opposed, instead saying that it was the result of "political factors inside Iraq that came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, my assessment would be correct. ... The point I was making at the time was the political dynamic was the driving force in that sectarian violence."
Meanwhile, Jim Geraghty points out the mistakes that Obama made in his CBS interview.Several times in recent interviews, Obama has referred to "taken our eye off the ball" in terms of the invasion of Iraq, which began in March of 2003. We don't know precisely when Osama bin Laden entered Pakistan, but it is generally believed that he escaped Tora Bora and crossed the border sometime in late November or the beginning of December 2001.Then Lara Logan gets Obama to admit that his call for killing bin Laden inside Pakistan is just what the Bush policy already is. Obama acts as if all we have to do is put some pressure on the Pakistani government and they'll bow to his wishes and go after the terrorist training camps in Pakistan. I guess he thinks that the Bush administration has just been ignoring the possibilities of pressuring an unstable nuclear power with Al Qaeda sympathizers in their security forces. If only Bush had thought of that!
Somehow the U.S. took its collective eyes off the ball to prevent an event that occurred in December 2001 by sending troops to another country starting in March 2002 for an invasion that began in 2003.
UPDATE: Andrew McCarthy wonders how smart it is for Obama to transfer credit for the success of the surge from the American military to what he seems to regard as a coincidence of timing.does Obama think the Sunni Awakening and the Shia militia stand-down are somehow separate developments from the surge and the brilliant performance of American forces? If he really thinks that, it's dumb. And if he thinks it's better to say that to the American people — who are very proud of their military — than simply to say "I wuz wrong," it's politically dumb.Think of the efforts that the media went to in order to get George W. Bush say that he'd made a mistake as president. Will they press Obama in the same way? We know the answer of course.
For political reasons, Senator Obama would rather deny full credit to the performance of the American military than allow President Bush and Senator McCain to have been correct when he was wrong.
0 comments
Comments:
ABC interviewed Obama for Nightline and asked him, if he'd known then what he knows now about the success of the surge would he have supported the surge last year. See if his answer is at all coherent.
He admits that it was a success, but he'd still oppose it. Does he just prefer failure?
Obama says he doesn't want to answer hypotheticals. Well, isn't the whole premise of his superior judgment to having opposed taking out Saddam Hussein really a hypothetical that presupposes that it would have been better not to have gone to war in Iraq?
And then he says this about his meeting with General Petraeus.
Obama still doesn't want to say that the surge achieved both political as well as military goals.
Meanwhile, Jim Geraghty points out the mistakes that Obama made in his CBS interview.
UPDATE: Andrew McCarthy wonders how smart it is for Obama to transfer credit for the success of the surge from the American military to what he seems to regard as a coincidence of timing.
For political reasons, Senator Obama would rather deny full credit to the performance of the American military than allow President Bush and Senator McCain to have been correct when he was wrong.
0 comments
ABC interviewed Obama for Nightline and asked him, if he'd known then what he knows now about the success of the surge would he have supported the surge last year. See if his answer is at all coherent.
Q: If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?So Obama had to oppose the surge because he didn't like the Bush administration. I suppose that, by broader issues, he means the fighting in Afghanistan. But how would it have improved Afghanistan if Iraq had descended even deeper into the bloody chaos that it was experiencing before the surge began? I know that no politician likes to admit that he made a mistake before, but it's clear that Obama's vaunted judgment was totally wrong about the surge and he won't admit that because he'd have to admit that McCain was right and he was wrong on a national security issue that they both had to vote on.
Obama: No. Because, keep in mind that —
Q: You wouldn’t?
Obama: Keep in mind, these kind of hypotheticals are very difficult. You know hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one I just disagreed with.
He admits that it was a success, but he'd still oppose it. Does he just prefer failure?
Obama says he doesn't want to answer hypotheticals. Well, isn't the whole premise of his superior judgment to having opposed taking out Saddam Hussein really a hypothetical that presupposes that it would have been better not to have gone to war in Iraq?
And then he says this about his meeting with General Petraeus.
Obama said that in his meeting with Petraeus, the general discussed his "deep concerns" about "a timetable that doesn't take into account what they anticipate might be a change in conditions."Actually, General Petraeus also has the job of balancing risks in Afghanistan and Iraq. He's head of CENTCOM which includes both wars. Of course, Obama wasn't there for that vote so maybe he's unaware of it. (McCain wasn't there either, but I bet he knows the scope of Central Command's authority.)
"My job is to think about the national security interests as a whole and to weigh and balance risks in Afghanistan and Iraq," Obama said. "Their job is just to get the job done here and I completely understand that.
Obama still doesn't want to say that the surge achieved both political as well as military goals.
"I think it is indisputable that because of great work that they have done as well as the unbelievable work that the troops have done we've made significant progress in terms of reducing violence in Iraq," he said.Well, what does he think caused those political factors occur? He acts as if they were totally independent of the military success and that the increased security that led to the decrease in sectarian violence had nothing to do with the political success we've seen in Iraq.
However, Obama would not attribute the decreased violence entirely to the troop surge, which he opposed, instead saying that it was the result of "political factors inside Iraq that came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, my assessment would be correct. ... The point I was making at the time was the political dynamic was the driving force in that sectarian violence."
Meanwhile, Jim Geraghty points out the mistakes that Obama made in his CBS interview.
Several times in recent interviews, Obama has referred to "taken our eye off the ball" in terms of the invasion of Iraq, which began in March of 2003. We don't know precisely when Osama bin Laden entered Pakistan, but it is generally believed that he escaped Tora Bora and crossed the border sometime in late November or the beginning of December 2001.Then Lara Logan gets Obama to admit that his call for killing bin Laden inside Pakistan is just what the Bush policy already is. Obama acts as if all we have to do is put some pressure on the Pakistani government and they'll bow to his wishes and go after the terrorist training camps in Pakistan. I guess he thinks that the Bush administration has just been ignoring the possibilities of pressuring an unstable nuclear power with Al Qaeda sympathizers in their security forces. If only Bush had thought of that!
Somehow the U.S. took its collective eyes off the ball to prevent an event that occurred in December 2001 by sending troops to another country starting in March 2002 for an invasion that began in 2003.
UPDATE: Andrew McCarthy wonders how smart it is for Obama to transfer credit for the success of the surge from the American military to what he seems to regard as a coincidence of timing.
does Obama think the Sunni Awakening and the Shia militia stand-down are somehow separate developments from the surge and the brilliant performance of American forces? If he really thinks that, it's dumb. And if he thinks it's better to say that to the American people — who are very proud of their military — than simply to say "I wuz wrong," it's politically dumb.Think of the efforts that the media went to in order to get George W. Bush say that he'd made a mistake as president. Will they press Obama in the same way? We know the answer of course.
For political reasons, Senator Obama would rather deny full credit to the performance of the American military than allow President Bush and Senator McCain to have been correct when he was wrong.
Comments:
Post a Comment
