Obama Still Opposes Surge, Altho' Successful

[John317]

Even Senator Obama's supporters are laughing and shaking their heads in disbelief at this one. He admits the surge has worked amazingly well and that the US is on the very verge of victory in Iraq, yet he says that he would still vote against the surge. That means that if he had had his way, the US would have pulled the troops out a long time ago, leaving the Iraqi government in the hands of terrorists, and therefore doomed to almost certain defeat. The US thus would have lost the war, and Obama and others like him would have been responsible for it. He predicted that the surge would not lessen casualties but would increase them. He was plainly wrong. But why doesn't he confess to it? Could it be he doesn't want to get hammered by the press for admitting error? In my book, if he told the truth about it, he would gain in moral stature, and I would be better able to see him as a straight-shooter and new kind of politician like he claims to be. But as it is, it seems rather obvious to me he is using good ol' double-speak for political advantages. Will it work? Maybe -- if some of my fellow-citizens don't mind being hood-winked. Come to think of it, it just might prove Tom Thumb guessed low in his estimation of how many of those suckers get born every minute.

======

Obama Won't 'Rubber Stamp' Military Decisions

In Exclusive 'Nightline' Interview, Senator Says He Still Doesn't Support Surge

By TERRY MORAN, MELINDA ARONS and KATIE ESCHERICH

BAGHDAD, Iraq

July 21, 2008

After meeting with top U.S. military commanders and members of the Iraqi government, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said Monday his opposition to the surge and support for a firm timetable for the withdrawal of troops hasn't changed.

Barack Obama talks about his unprecedented trip to Iraq.

In an exclusive interview, Obama told "Nightline" that if elected president, "we're going to begin to phase out our troops."

Obama is seeing a vastly different Iraq than the one he saw when he last visited more than two years ago. Violence and American casualties are way down, and the streets of Baghdad are bustling again.

So far this month, five U.S. troops have been killed in combat, compared with 78 U.S. deaths last July. Attacks across the country are down more than 80 percent. Still, when asked if knowing what he knows now, he would support the surge, the senator said no.

"These kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult," he said. "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 that I just disagreed with, and one that I continue to disagree with -- is to look narrowly at Iraq and not focus on these broader issues."

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

But why doesn't he confess to it?

That would be political suicide. But in a way, by supporting a surge in Afghanistan, he is admitting that the surge in Iraq was good and he was wrong.

[John317]

I agree that admitting this would go bad for him at first, but looking at it objectively, I think there is enough time between now and the election that he would be able to get beyond that big mistake in judgment. There is also the very good possibility that there would be people who would vote for him because he really would appear to be what he has been saying, a new and different kind of politician.

He's got the Left in his hip pocket anyway, and he knows it-- unless some elect to go for Ralph Nadar.

As you say, Obama may not say in so many words, "I made a mistake about the Iraqi surge," but what he does say about Afghanistan and even about Iraq show that he knows he did.

[Jeannieb43]

Who cares, at this point?

The "surge" is history. And actually the much-touted "surge" only brought the numbers of our men back up to the point where they'd been before. It wasn't actually such a huge increase in manpower.

But regardless of whether Obama supported it or not, it's done. It's history. Now the thing to do is work together with Petraeus and the leader of Iraq and get our men out of that country. And as of today's news, Obama is being successful in reaching agreement with both those men as to the timing -- getting all our personnel out of Iraq by 2010.

[Even GWB is now agreeing that there should be a "horizon." Interesting how he changes his tune from time to time. Flip-flops, one might call it.]

[John317]

What's the point? Well, for one thing, I think it tells us something important about Senator Obama. It shows that he didn't have the foresight and determination and judgment to support the surge. He would have pulled all the American troops out by now if he'd had his way. And what would have been the consequences of that decision? That says a lot. He would have been flat wrong. He even said that the surge would actually result in more, not less, violence. And as I said, he is wrong now, but, strictly for political reasons, he won't admit the obvious.

The latest polls show most Americans prefer McCain to be the man in charge of the military forces. I can see why.

I would be OK with Obama becoming president but it is obvious to me that Obama is terribly inexperienced and in some ways is in over his head. He would have to learn by mistakes in a way that I don't think McCain would. McCain is a known quantity. The American people don't even really know Obama yet. We're still getting acquainted with his thinking, and so far it is sort of scattered. You keep asking yourself about him, where's the center? He has changed virtually everything he said he stood for during the Iowa primary.

So he talks a great line. Wonderful. Mr Change! But what kinda change? Does he really know himself or does it matter, just as long as we're changing? That's my worry. Where are we going as a country? Where would he take us?

[Dr. Shane]

Obama is talking about still having 50,000 troops in Iraq after 2010. 50,000 is a little bit more than zero.

[John317]

Yes, it sure is a lot more than zero, I agree.

As I was recently re-studying what happened in Rome after 538 AD, it reminded me of what could have happened in Iraq if the US had withdrawn prematurely. In Italy, the Roman Emperor had withdrawn his forces and his general, Belisarius, from Rome before he should have, and as a consequence the Goths retook Rome with only a small force of 10,000 men. Belisarius had to return and raise an army to kick out the Goths, not because hadn't been defeated earlier, but because Rome was left without virtually any defense. This happened twice. Justinian thought he had won the West before the West was completely won.

If we leave Iraq too soon, before the Iraqis are able to defend the country alone, the terrorists and their insurgent allies could take over, and we would need to go back in. That is what Obama said he would do if he had to, but it seems a better military strategy to leave only after you know there won't be a need to return. If we had to return, it would mean the terrorists have re-established themselves there and could make it hard to dislodge them. That would result in the necessity of fighting the war all over again, not a very smart plan in my book.

[carolaa]

He's got the Left in his hip pocket anyway, and he knows it-- unless some elect to go for Ralph Nadar.

Or Cynthia McKinney.

[John317]

Heard of her but don't know how she differs now from Obama. I will know for sure who I will vote for after the debates. Not sure now, but I am leaning toward McCain. I never got really excited about any of the candidates this election. Obama has disappointed me. I thought he was going to be a different kind of politician but he is turning out, in my mind, to be like all the others I've watched. Just a much better public speaker.

[Neil D]

Heard of her but don't know how she differs now from Obama. I will know for sure who I will vote for after the debates. Not sure now, but I am leaning toward McCain. I never got really excited about any of the candidates this election. Obama has disappointed me. I thought he was going to be a different kind of politician but he is turning out, in my mind, to be like all the others I've watched. Just a much better public speaker.

I am sorry, but I totally disagree with this assessment. You have not been kind to Obama at all and in fact, most of your posts have come in with negative comments regarding Obama.

Don't try to pander to me or anyone here saying you were open minded about him. You started off with negative comments and you kept at it. To say that you were a bit open to Obama is greatly disingenuous...at least in my mind.

[there buster]

Quote:

You have not been kind to Obama at all . . .

I agree j317, you brute, you. You keep bringing up all those things Obama said in the past, and how he doesn't know anyone he's spent he last 20 years with. That's so unkind.

Don't you see, Obama is the change we can believe in, if only we have the courage to believe in change. And if he says one thing today, and another tomorrow, that only shows how much he can change, moment by moment. But you don't believe. You get into all the distractions, like things he says, or his wife says in campaign speeches. Be kind. Listen to her, but don't reply. It's time for a change.

And, after he gets through raising your taxes, pocket change is all you'll have left. So you might as well change your beliefs, and believe in change.

[olger]

Chump change?

[John317]

I'm not claiming to be "kind" to any candidate. This is a time for taking cold, hard looks at candidates for president; it is not a good thing for America to turn a blind eye to what they are doing or how they might be if in the White House.

Have I really thought I could or might vote for Obama? I was very struck by him in a positive way when I saw him give his victory speech after he won the Iowa primary. I was a teenager and very much interested in government and such matters when Kennedy became president. To tell the truth Obama reminded me of Kennedy, the first candidate since Robert Kennedy to stir those memories in me. I told me wife, "Come look at this. This guy is something else. He reminds me of President Kennedy. Listen to him. What a great speaker. He's exciting. He stirs hope more like Kennedy than anyone I've seen."

But since that time, the story from my vantage point, as far as Obama is concerned, has been one misstep after another. I've examined his voting record closely and compared it to McCains. There's also the whole matter of his listening to Wright for 20 years and then saying Wright isn't the man he knew. Then there's that other man he knew for 20 years-- the one recently convicted-- who he says is not the man he knew all that time. Also the former terrorist who Obama has shared the speaking platform with several times. And his wife saying she hasn't been proud to be American until just recently after her husband started getting a lot of votes.

Is he just unlucky or what? Or is he maybe naive? He doesn't seem to be a good judge of character. If I spend just a short time around someone like that, I would know what kind of person they are; and yet Obama doesn't seem to know these people after being with them for 20 years. There seems to be a pattern here. Am I supposed to believe he really did not know them at all? I want to see his long-time friends who love America and have proven their willingness to sacrifice for the country. The lack of these honestly give me some pause, I must admit.

There are all the changes in his policies and views in the last month or so, and then this matter of Obama refusing to admit the obvious fact that he was wrong about the surge.

OK, so what would you have me do, ignore these things?

Could I still vote for him? Actually I think I could, but he sure has some talking and proving to do before I would. I'll be in Denver watching and listening. And photographing.

[there buster]

Quote:

Chump change?

Why, oh, dear. . . blasphemy!

How dare you besmirch the Obamessiah! The giver of hope-a-dope!

I'm going to have an attack of the vapors.

[D. Allan]

Good commentary, Jeannie. tu

Now the thing to do is work together with Petraeus and the leader of Iraq and get our men out of that country. And as of today's news, Obama is being successful in reaching agreement with both those men as to the timing -- getting all our personnel out of Iraq by 2010.

[John317]

Quote:

You have not been kind to Obama at all . . .

I agree j317, you brute, you. You keep bringing up all those things Obama said in the past, and how he doesn't know anyone he's spent he last 20 years with. That's so unkind.

Don't you see, Obama is the change we can believe in, if only we have the courage to believe in change. And if he says one thing today, and another tomorrow, that only shows how much he can change, moment by moment. But you don't believe. You get into all the distractions, like things he says, or his wife says in campaign speeches. Be kind. Listen to her, but don't reply. It's time for a change.

And, after he gets through raising your taxes, pocket change is all you'll have left. So you might as well change your beliefs, and believe in change.

Speaking of change, here's something that is very apropos to the topic, humorous and also right on the money (pun intended):

"Don't know bout you but I don't want more change....

A few weeks ago I read a joke . . . . it said all the politicians running for president are promising change to the American people . . . . .we send them billions and billions of tax dollars and they send us the change.

Funny? Not really; there is too much truth in it to be funny.

That got me to thinking...... they all promise change. How about if they run on a promise of restoration rather than change. A restoration that would take us back in time to a place where things ran better, smoother and life was more enjoyable. Change? That, in truth, is what they have been giving us all along.

We used to have a strong dollar ........ politicians changed that.

Life used to be sacred ........ politicians changed that.

We used to be respected around the world ........ politicians changed that.

We used to have a strong manufacturing economy ........ politicians changed that.

We used to have lower tax structures ........ politicians changed that.

We used to enjoy more freedoms ........ politicians changed that.

We used to be a large exporter of American made goods ........ politicians changed that.

We used to be an openly Christian nation ........ politicians changed that.

We used to teach patriotism in schools ........ politicians changed that.

We used to educate children in schools ........ politicians changed that.

We used to enjoy freedom of speech ........ politicians changed that.

We used to have affordable food and gas prices ........ politicians changed that, too.

. . . . . . . . .and one could go on and on with this list. What hasn't been changed, politicians are promising to change that as well if you will elect them.

When, oh when, is America going to sit back with open eyes and look at what we once were and where we have come and say, 'Enough is enough.'?

The trouble is, America's youthful voters today don't know of the great America that existed forty and fifty years ago. They see the world as if it has always existed as it is now.

When will we wake up? Tomorrow may be too late! When will America realize ........ Politicians are what is wrong with America?"

[Woody]

You are right. The less politicians do the better. I've always rejoiced when the Government shut down. Just a moment in time with relief.

Vote for LESS government.