Obama: Surge Succeeded Beyond ‘Wildest Dreams’

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Denny Crane

It's not even loaded!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
73,114
Likes
10,947
Points
113
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/04/obama-surge-succeeded-beyond-wildest-dreams/

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.”​

However, he added, the country has not had enough “political reconciliation” and Iraqis still have not taken responsibility for their country.​

“We have gone through five years of mismanagement of this war that I thought was disastrous, and the president wanted to double down and continue an open-ended policy (that did not put pressure on the Iraqi government),” he said.​

Speaking on other national security matters, Obama said he would not take military action off the table in dealing with Iran, but diplomacy and sanctions can’t be overlooked.​

The Islamic republic is a “major threat” and it would be “unacceptable” for the rogue nation to develop a nuclear weapon, he said.​

“It is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon, it would be a game changer,” Obama said. “It’s sufficient to say I would not take military action off the table and that I will never hesitate to use our military force in order to protect the homeland and the United States’ interests.”​

But Obama warned against the current U.S. administration lumping radical Islamic groups together.​

“They have fueled a whole host of terrorist organizations,” Obama said of Iran, but “we have to have the ability to distinguish between groups. … They may not all be part and parcel of the same ideology.”​

Obama sat down with O’Reilly in York, Pa., after holding a discussion on the economy with voters nearby. The Illinois senator has been campaigning in battleground states since accepting the Democratic presidential nomination last Thursday at his party’s convention in Denver.

John McCain was formally chosen as the Republican presidential nominee Wednesday in St. Paul.​
Obama also told FOX News Thursday he “absolutely” believes the United States is fighting a War on Terror, with the enemy being, “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, a whole host of networks that are bent on attacking America, who have a distorted ideology, who have perverted the faith of Islam.”​


He repeated his campaign’s foreign policy position that Afghanistan must become the “central front” in the War on Terror.​


Obama was first asked to come on “The O’Reilly Factor” in early 2007.​


The interview will air in three more parts, at 8 p.m. ET Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.​
 
Quite an admission. His own words can be used to thwart the "judgment" argument he makes (he was wrong about the surge).

Score for O'Reilly. When I first opened the WWW page, I thought Obama was trying to steal some of McCain's thunder (fair is fair) during the convention or shortly after. Next week is more time than McCain took to announce Palin as his VP.
 
Hate him or love him, O'Reilly knows how to do an interview and ask tough questions.

No wonder why Obama ducked him for so long.
 
Barry can still make the case he had the best judgment on this issue.

A surge alone doesn't guarantee these results, various serendipitous factors culminated in order for our success to occur. Comparing that to the tangible/intangible cost would make a respectable case to the American people.
 
Last edited:
Barry can still make the case he had the best judgment on this issue.

A surge alone doesn't guarantee these results, various serendipitous factors culminated in order for our success to occur. Comparing that to the tangible/intangible cost would make a respectable case to the American people.

If that was true, then why didn't he admit the surge worked earlier instead of denying it for the entire campaign?
 
If that was true, then why didn't he admit the surge worked earlier instead of denying it for the entire campaign?

Where have I heard this before? :O

The surge has long term effects on us...

Couric: But didn't the surge …

Obama: And …

Couric: …help do that?

Obama: Let me finish, Katie. What happens is that if we continue to put $10 billion to $12 billion a month into Iraq, if we are willing to send as many troops as we can muster continually into Iraq? There's no doubt that that's gonna have an impact. But it doesn't meet our long-term strategic goal, which is to make the American people safer over the long term. If that means that we're detracting from our efforts in Afghanistan, where conditions are deteriorating, if it means that we are distracted from going after Osama bin Laden who is still sending out audio tapes and is operating training camps where we know terrorists' actions are being plotted.

If we have shifted away from the central front of terrorism as a consequence of enormous and continuing investments in Iraq, then that's a poor strategic choice. And ultimately, what we've got to do is - we have to recognize that Iraq is just one of our … security problems. It's not the only one.

We've got big problems in Afghanistan. We've got a significant threat in Iran. We've got to deal with Pakistan and the fact that there are safe havens there. Those are all the factors and all the issues that I've gotta take into account when I'm president of the United States.

Couric: All that may be true. But do you not give the surge any credit for reducing violence in Iraq?

Obama: No, no … of course I have. There is no doubt that the extraordinary work of our U.S. forces has contributed to a lessening of the violence, just as making sure that the Sadr militia stood down or the fact that the Sunni tribes decided to flip and work with us instead of with al-Qaeda - something that we hadn't anticipated happening.

All those things have contributed to a reduction in violence. So this, in no way, detracts from the great efforts of our young men and women in uniform. In fact, that's one of the most striking things about visiting Iraq is to see how dedicated they are, what a great job they do - all those things … are critically important. What I'm saying is it does not solve the broader strategic question that we have been dealing with over the last five, six, seven years. And that is how do we take the limited resources we have, both militarily and financially, and apply them in such a way that we are making America as safe as possible? And I believe that my approach is the right one.

Couric: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?

Obama: Katie, as … you've asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There's no doubt.

Couric: But yet you're saying … given what you know now, you still wouldn't support it … so I'm just trying to understand this.

Obama: Because … it's pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that's money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision-- to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.

Couric: And I really don't mean to belabor this, Senator, because I'm really, I'm trying … to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq …

Obama: Yes.

Couric … would exist today without the surge?

Obama: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there's no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that, not just today, not just yesterday, but I've said that previously. What that doesn't change is that we've got to have a different strategic approach if we're going to make America as safe as possible.

Source: CBS News
 
Last edited:
You didn't answer my question. How come it took 19 months for him to admit this?

We've got to deal with Pakistan and the fact that there are safe havens there.

No kidding.
 
No amount of ridiculous explanation is necessary for Obama. He was wrong, he knows it. If Obama had his way things could be going even worse in Iraq and the probability that we'd be handing the country over to islamic radicalism in a very short time would be highly likely.

Then again, can we expect a community organizer with no service to really understand how effective our military can be when their hands aren't tied behind their backs?
 
Chris Matthews had a good line about Obama and McCain, particularly their performances at that one religious forum. "McCain grabs the question and answers it, Obama 'handles' the question."

This is a perfect case of handling the question (answering it with a lot of words and dancing around the answer) vs. grabbing it (hey, I'm wrong, I admit it, let's move on.)
 
^^John Stewart made a similar comment about President Bush.

Just watch the first 65 seconds to get the point.

[video=youtube;uxsXHXIErHQ]
 
Is Bush running for a 3rd term or something?

No, McCain is NOT Bush.
 
Is Bush running for a 3rd term or something?

No, McCain is NOT Bush.

Bush running for a 3rd term? Didn't realize that was allowed, lol.

What a wild misinterpretation. I wasn't even comparing Bush to McCain, in fact it was more likely that I would have been comparing Bush to Obama. Based on Chris Matthew's statement Obama tactics are similar to Bush's according to John Stewart.

It was just a tv clip I remembered after reading your post, no more and no less. Learn to take things at face value, it starts to get obnoxious.
 
It's OK, but it's OK to point out Bush isn't running, too :)
 
No amount of ridiculous explanation is necessary for Obama. He was wrong, he knows it. If Obama had his way things could be going even worse in Iraq and the probability that we'd be handing the country over to islamic radicalism in a very short time would be highly likely.

Then again, can we expect a community organizer with no service to really understand how effective our military can be when their hands aren't tied behind their backs?

Your simplification of the situation was not sufficient.

Obama is indeed dancing around this topic, yet he still has valid points.
 
Your simplification of the situation was not sufficient.

Obama is indeed dancing around this topic, yet he still has valid points.

His points are "if at first you don't succeed, tuck tail and run!"
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top