GOV/MIL Obama Won't "Rubber Stamp" Mlitary Decisions

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

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."

Afghanistan: The 'Central Front'
Those broader issues mainly include Afghanistan and Pakistan. Obama arrived in Iraq today after a weekend in Afghanistan, where increasing violence has caused concern. Obama has said he wants to pull troops from Iraq and deploy them to Afghanistan. "My argument would be we need to have some sort of time frame because we have to start planning if we want to get an additional two brigades in Afghanistan," he said. "We've got to start planning now.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5417331&page=1

Link to videotape of his (unscripted) comment:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/obama-i-would-not-support-the-surge/1307970094

Knowing What He Knows Now, Obama Still Would Not Support the Surge

This is really amazing. I get the feeling that Obama is one of those guys who sees it as a sign of weakness to ever admit he’s wrong. In an interview today with ABC, after speaking with General Petraeus, Obama credited the members of the Sunni Awakening, and Shia fighters with the success of the surge. GOP.Com reports:

Obama Told ABC’s Terry Moran That, Despite The Progress That Has Occurred In Iraq, He Would Not Have Supported The Surge. Moran: “‘[T]he surge of U.S. troops, combined with ordinary Iraqis’ rejection of both al Qaeda and Shiite extremists have transformed the country. Attacks are down more than 80% nationwide. U.S. combat casualties have plummeted, five this month so far, compared with 78 last July, and Baghdad has a pulse again.’ If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you — would you support the surge?” Obama: “No, because — keep in mind that -” Moran: “You wouldn’t?” Obama: “Well, no, keep — these kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult . Hindsight is 20/20. I think what I am 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.” Moran: “And so, when pressed, Barack Obama says he still would have opposed the surge.”

Did Obama even understand the question? Marc Ambinder Reports:

Obama said that he “did not anticipate, and I think that this is a fair characterization, the convergence of not only the surge but the Sunni awakening in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had had enough with Al Qaeda, in the Shii’a community the militias standing down to some degrees. So what you had is a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, I think that my assessment would have been correct.”

Soooo, knowing what he knows now…that the Sunni Awakening, and the Shii’a militias standing down would coincide with the “terrific work of our troops”, (aka US troops kicking al Qaeda’s ass)… he still wouldn’t support the surge??????????????? Even knowing that the horrific violence would probably have skyrocketed without enough of our troops to fight the bad guys and protect the Iraqi people?

HE’D STILL NOT SUPPORT THE SURGE.

In other words…the troops played no role what-so-ever in the routing of al Qaeda, the Sunni Awakening, and the overall reduction of violence that has lead to our almost certain victory in Iraq. They were pretty much just targets for our enemies.

Wow. GAME OVER, MAN! How anyone (with a working brain) will be able to take this man seriously after this, I just don’t know,

I mean, does this make sense to anybody? Hindsight is not that difficult, unless your arrogance prevents you from ever admitting when you’re wrong.

http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/0...nows-now-obama-would-still-not-support-surge/

Well at least 40% of the voting population is brain dead, maybe closer to 50%.

Capt. Travis Patriquin (RIP) is doing a slow rollover in his grave today because of Obama.

Reality/results mean nothing to the Obamatons unless it fits their brand of it. I think we'd get a better answer if we asked some Iraqis living near, oh, maybe Ramadi. Given that we have been rebuilding infrastructure, helping factories to start up again, reopening up schools, etc. I'd say the whole damn thing worked.

Fat Mookie Al Sadr and his 'Mahdi Army' are reduced to thugs, irrhabis are leaving Iraq for places where they won't get their ass*s blown off like Pak and Afghanistan....

Oblama is a sly idiot. And if people would just stop for a minute and chew on this:

"My argument would be we need to have some sort of time frame because we have to start planning if we want to get an additional two brigades in Afghanistan," he said. "We've got to start planning now.

Click to expand...

He wants to pull troops out of Iraq and send them to the 'Stans. "Out of Iraq now!" becomes "Out of the frying pan into the fire".....Is anybody realizing this? He's not going to get us out of the ME, he's just going to move us somewhere else -- HELLOOOOOO. The anti-war crowd is not going to be happy.....unless they are so hypnotized they're beyond help.

Let's see...

Democrat Clinton got us involved in the Balkans over military objections. That's been a raging success. Not.

Democrat Carter ordered up the Iran hostage rescue with less than stellar results.

Democrat Johnson and Vietnam.

Yeah, given that history, I can see Obama ignoring the military's advice and getting us involved in something that turns into a disaster.

Ummm....

Let's not be so quick to generalize!!!

Bush ingnored the advice of Shinseki prior to invading Iraq and fired him...now more than five years later..."The Surge" is working.

Why the "F" didn't we do this in the first place?

Barack is right. We have to end the war.

We either have to win it ..........

or walk away from it.

There is no more money to spend on it. At a cost of ten BILLION dollars a WEEK we've just run out of options.

It doesn't matter whether the war is right or wrong.

It doesn't matter whether or not we're winning or losing.

It's over.

There is no more money to throw at this.

Period!!

big_sarge said:

Ummm....

Let's not be so quick to generalize!!!

Bush ingnored the advice of Shinseki prior to invading Iraq and fired him...now more than five years later..."The Surge" is working.

Why the "F" didn't we do this in the first place?

Click to expand...

I think because he trusted the Rummy more than his professional military. (Bad move--never trust a politician or a political appointee in matters relating to war. Trust the military, because they're the ones who bleed--and they truly don't want to bleed.) However, at least he eventually listened to Petreus (sp?). I don't recall any of those I listed ever listening to their professionals.

Loon said:

Barack is right. We have to end the war.

We either have to win it ..........

or walk away from it.

There is no more money to spend on it. At a cost of ten BILLION dollars a WEEK we've just run out of options.

It doesn't matter whether the war is right or wrong.

It doesn't matter whether or not we're winning or losing.

It's over.

There is no more money to throw at this.

Period!!

Click to expand...

He's not going to end it, Loon. That's what I was trying to say earlier. He is only going to move some of it into another theater, Afghanistan, possibly Pak. That's the deal, nobody is noticing what he himself is saying about this! We will still be in the ME. Period.

your Obama is like Tony Blair, a complete unknown catapulted by the illuminati to carry out their changed policies

Yeah,don't listen to the military. I think thats what happened in NAM!!

"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."

Click to expand...

WHAT THE *&#$@ DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?!

Is he capable of saying ANYTHING clearly? Listening to him talk is like trying to ride a bicycle with a blindfold and earmuffs - you swerve all over the place and have no idea where you'll end up or how.

Bush should have that F'in commie arrested for treason!!