• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Obama's 'Judgment'

Texan

Well-known member
He vocally opposed the surge...

Without the surge and a new counterinsurgency strategy, the U.S. would have suffered a humiliating defeat in Iraq.

...earlier this week his campaign erased from its Web site all traces of his surge opposition.




REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Obama's 'Judgment'
July 18, 2008; Page A12

Barack Obama departs for Iraq as early as this weekend, with a media entourage as large as some of his rallies. He'll no doubt learn a lot, in addition to getting a good photo op. What we'll be waiting to hear is whether the would-be Commander in Chief absorbs enough to admit he was wrong about the troop surge in Iraq.

Mr. Obama has made a central basis of his candidacy the "judgment" he showed in opposing the Iraq war in 2002, even if it was a risk-free position to take as an Illinois state senator. The claim helped him win the Democratic primaries. But the 2007 surge debate is the single most important strategic judgment he has had to make on the more serious stage as a Presidential candidate. He vocally opposed the surge, and events have since vindicated President Bush. Without the surge and a new counterinsurgency strategy, the U.S. would have suffered a humiliating defeat in Iraq.

Yet Mr. Obama now wants to ignore that judgment, and earlier this week his campaign erased from its Web site all traces of his surge opposition. Lest media amnesia set in, here is what the Obama site previously said:

"The problem – the Surge: The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq's political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq's civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war."

Mr. Obama's site now puts a considerably brighter gloss on the surge. Yet the candidate himself shows no signs of rethinking. In a foreign-policy address Tuesday, the Senator described the surge, in effect, as a waste of $200 billion, an intolerable strain on military resources and a distraction from what he sees as a more important battle in Afghanistan. He faulted Iraq's leaders for failing to make "the political progress that was the purpose of the surge." And his 16-month timetable for near-total withdrawal apparently remains firm.

It would be nice if Mr. Obama could at least get his facts straight. Earlier this month, the U.S. embassy in Baghdad reported that the Iraqi government had met 15 of the 18 political benchmarks set for it in 2006. The Sunni bloc in Iraq's parliament is returning to the government after a year's absence. Levels of sectarian violence have held steady for months – at zero. (In January 2007, Mr. Obama had predicted on MSNBC that the surge would not only fail to curb sectarian violence, but would "do the reverse.") If this isn't sufficient evidence of "genuine political accommodation," we'd like to know what, in his judgment, is.

The freshman Senator also declared that "true success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future – a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not re-emerge."

Yet the reason Iraq is finally getting that kind of government is precisely because of the surge, which neutralized al Qaeda and gave Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki the running room to confront Moqtada al-Sadr's Shiite Mahdi Army. And the reason the U.S. can now contemplate more troop withdrawals is because the surge has created the conditions that mean the U.S. would not be leaving a security vacuum. On Wednesday, Mr. Maliki's government assumed security responsibility in yet another province, meaning a majority of provinces are now under full Iraqi control.

Mr. Obama acknowledges none of this. Instead, his rigid timetable for withdrawal offers Iraq's various groups every reason to seek their security in local militias such as the Mahdi Army or even al Qaeda, thereby risking a return to the desperate situation it confronted in late 2006.

The Washington Post has criticized this as obstinate, and Democratic foreign policy analyst Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution reacted this way: "To say you're going to get out on a certain schedule – regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground – is the height of absurdity."

Mr. Obama does promise to "consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government" in implementing his plans. But he would have shown more sincerity on this score had he postponed Tuesday's address until after he visited Iraq and had a chance to speak with those generals and Iraqis. The timing of his speech made it appear not that he is open to what General David Petraeus tells him, but that he wants to limit the General's military options.

Mr. Bush has often been criticized for refusing to admit his Iraq mistakes, but he proved that wrong in ordering the surge that reversed his policy and is finally winning the war. The next President will now take office with the U.S. in a far better security position than 18 months ago. Mr. Obama could help his own claim to be Commander in Chief, and ease doubts about his judgment, if he admits that Mr. Bush was right.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121633647742963787.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
The libs don't care, Texan. They ignore all the time he's flip-flopped on issues, spoken out of both sides of his mouth, and been competely proven wrong. They're just starry-eyed mumbling "Change, Change, Change" when they should be chanting "Gullible, gullible, gullible"
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Condi says "We’re just changing our position" .( Can’t you notice the difference? :???: :roll: :wink: :lol: )
With Bush/McSame the neocons call it "policy change"- but with Obama its a flip flop :???:

Are GW and Condi now Nazi appeasers :???:

The thing is that if Obama had been President instead of King George- we probably wouldn't have been in an Iraq war- and our troops wouldn't be suffering and in greater danger in Afghanistan now because of the shortage of available "surge" troops for there...


In a surprising development in the tense American-Iranian relationship, the US announced this week that it would send a high-level State Department official to attend talks with Iranian nuclear negotiators in Switzerland over the weekend. This unexpected policy turn comes after a tense, saber rattling summer during which the US, Israel, and Iran have traded threats, staged war games, and tested weapons. But observers suggest that the shift in the US’s longstanding tactic of isolating Tehran may be motivated by a desire to ensure that other countries such as China and Russia do not make too many concessions to Iran during the negotiations.
July 17, 2008

US plans to station diplomats in Iran for first time since 1979
Washington move signals thaw in relations

Ewen MacAskill in Washington The Guardian, Thursday July 17, 2008

The US plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years as part of a remarkable turnaround in policy by President George Bush.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/usa.iran

May 15th, 2008 --During a speech in Jerusalem, President Bush jumped head first into the 2008 presidential campaign by taking a shot at Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, by comparing his willingness to hold diplomatic talks with Iran to the appeasement of Nazis in the 1930’s.
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
The ONLY thing that ever came out of Hussein Obama's mouth (or pen) that I believe with all my heart is "I will stand with the Muslims". :roll:

There is still a chance for Hillary to get the nod in Denver...it ain't over just yet.
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Condi says "We’re just changing our position" .( Can’t you notice the difference? :???: :roll: :wink: :lol: )
With Bush/McSame the neocons call it "policy change"- but with Obama its a flip flop :???:

Oldtimer, where did you find that quote that you attribute to Dr. Rice - "We’re just changing our position"?

I tried to track it down and every mention of it goes right back to one of the leftist blogs - Crooks and Liars:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/18/condoleezza-rice-we-arent-flip-flopping-on-iran/


In fact, the blog even contains the words that you used in your post - "Can’t you notice the difference?"


They link an article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/usa.iran

But that quote isn't contained in the article.


They link a video:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/31104/1/tsr-rice-071808.wmv

My dialup won't let me watch videos, so I'm wondering if that's where you got that quote?

It seems to me that more of the news outlets should have the quote if she actually said that. Because that would seem to me just like chickenshit little word games.
 

Texan

Well-known member
Not that you're interested, but here's part of the actual transcript of an interview that Secretary Rice did with Sean Hannity on Thursday regarding the same subject:


QUESTION: – ...you said yesterday that the Bush Administration’s decision to break with past policy and send a top diplomat for weekend talks with an Iranian envoy proves that the international community is united in trying to eliminate threats to Iran’s nuclear program. Are there any preconditions to this talk? Because that’s been a big issue with Barack Obama.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes. And here’s the situation. First of all, this decision, this tactical decision to send Bill Burns one time to receive the reply that the Iranians are supposed to give to the offer that the United States, Russia, China, and three European states made – he’s going to go receive the reply, and he’s going to tell the Iranians, in no uncertain terms, that if they want to negotiate, the condition for doing that is to suspend verifiably their enrichment and reprocessing. So this is really to reinforce the policy that we’ve set up. It’s to reinforce our unity with the other five countries that are doing this. And its, frankly, to say to the Iranian people, “Your government has a way out of this, and instead, they continue isolating themselves and isolating you.”

QUESTION: So this is a very, very specific, one-time meeting. This is not a negotiation. Would that be fair?

SECRETARY RICE: This is not a negotiation. We sent the letter to the Iranians with an offer. They’re coming back to give the response. Bill will listen to the response. He will explain to them the conditions under which the United States will negotiate, which have not changed. And in doing so, we believe we reinforce our policy and we reinforce our allies.

QUESTION: Yeah, well, you know, it’s being played up in the media as a shift in position. Does that bother you or frustrate you?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, what’s frustrating about that is that if people were – if people are just listening, they will hear very clearly that we are not going to negotiate on this – negotiate with the Iranians until they suspend their enrichment and reprocessing. That has been the bottom line always. And there’s a sense somehow that because we’re making this tactical decision that we’re changing policy. But our policy is as firm as ever. We think, if anything, this is an opportunity to reinforce it with the Iranians.



http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/07/107178.htm
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
That was the source- and essentially again thats what it is - a "policy change"...They can play Clinotonese word games of what is "is" or "sex"- or why a "horizon" is not a "timetable" or in this instance- a "tactical decision" --- but they are all changes in policy....

The sad part is that Bush can't admit to "change" and has to wallow around the perimeters further deceiving everyone....Too bad he couldn't have learned to change and adapt years ago- and we wouldn't have had the mess's we have now now in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran...

But like Dad used to say--"You can always tell a Texan, but you can't tell them much"....

I thought the more interesting article was the UK one- that was reporting establishing a diplomatic force in Iran...The reason is that when PM Brown was meeting with the House of Commons the other day he hinted at this- and even mentioned that the US was doing direct talks with Iran already :roll: - much of it brokered by the UK and Russia...

Also the British didn't show the fear of Iran as being fostered by GW and his troupe of warmongering neocons- and Brown said they are significantly happy with the guarantees that Russia had given them that they had not given them any nuclear weaponsmaking capabilities...

He also brought up the fact that Russia and the UK were taking a lead role in sitting up an "enriched uranium" bank in one country (?)- and that all the uranium needed for energy programs could be gotten from that one world bank- and there would no longer be a need for any enrichment facilities in these developing countries....

Haven't heard a word out of GW on that one either... :shock:
 

Texan

Well-known member
So, essentially what you did was to repeat a lie when you attributed a quote to Secretary Rice that she didn't actually make. You've become quite predictable at doing that lately. As long as you read it on one of your leftist blogs, you accept it as the gospel and don't even try to find the truth.

That's okay if that's what you want to believe. But to repeat things like that here as if they are the truth is pretty dishonest. And you've been doing that on a regular basis lately. That's unfortunate. :???:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Texan said:
So, essentially what you did was to repeat a lie when you attributed a quote to Secretary Rice that she didn't actually make. You've become quite predictable at doing that lately. As long as you read it on one of your leftist blogs, you accept it as the gospel and don't even try to find the truth.

That's okay if that's what you want to believe. But to repeat things like that here as if they are the truth is pretty dishonest. And you've been doing that on a regular basis lately. That's unfortunate. :???:

I posted the quote- and the source...Take it for what its worth...I agree some of these Blogs are not the most reliable- but I still can't find any that say she didn't say it...

But most are probably more reliable than the propogandist lies/deceit that have been put out of the White House neocons daily for the past 7 years- and now proven to be unequivocally false...

So Texan- its OK for GW to change his position- and start negotiating and call it a "tactical decision"--but if Obama changes a position, its a flip flop :???:
 

Larrry

Well-known member
but I still can't find any that say she didn't say it...

Now just stop and think about that statement. Let's put it this way GW will never be the dumbest man on earth until you meet your maker.


But like Dad used to say--"You can always tell a Texan, but you can't tell them much"....

Reminds me of the oldtimer around here. He said once a pig always a pig
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Larrry said:
I posted the quote- and the source...Take it for what its worth...I agree some of these Blogs are not the most reliable

So don't take it personal if we can't believe a word you say.


:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Glad to see someon else recognizes that.
Be very carefull larry he will start to claim you are me and vice versa, of course he will have not proof but that makes no difference to a liberal, all they have to do is accuse and that makes it right! Even if he is a Supreme court judge, OPPPPS part time justice of the peace with out any real athourity do do thing but try traffic tickets and small court cases.


Opps here comes his slam on me brecause I have 2 other users name, and according to him I am therefore un trustworthy.
THe king of cut and paste and liberal blogs and polls will try to turn it around anyway he can even if the poll has gone against him :roll: :roll:

Oh well let him believe his crap, if it makes him at last feel like he is worthy of something! :D :D :D :D
 

Larrry

Well-known member
hopalong, you know when their arguments run out then they claim mutiple names. If they were rocket scientist like they try to make us believe they would take on all regardless.
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I posted the quote- and the source...
:???: What ?!?!? That's just not true, Oldtimer. All you did was post a 'quote' - a 'quote' that apparently wasn't even true.

Thinking that you had posted a legitimate quote, I spent 20 minutes this morning trying to google around to find it - BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T POST A SOURCE. When I finally tracked it down to a mention on a liberal blog, that's when I posted the link and asked you if you had more.

I posted the 'source,' Oldtimer - not you. :???:
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I agree some of these Blogs are not the most reliable- but I still can't find any that say she didn't say it...
Is that your new standard of truth and justice, Oldtimer? You read something on one of your Bush-hating leftist blogs and unless you see something on another leftist blog that says it's NOT true - then it MUST be the truth? If that wasn't so sad, I'd be LMAO.


Oldtimer said:
But most are probably more reliable than the propogandist lies/deceit that have been put out of the White House neocons daily for the past 7 years- and now proven to be unequivocally false...
The liberal's old trusty standby - the 'everybody does it' excuse, huh? LOL. If the Bush administration is really as bad as you claim, why do you keep making sht up? :lol:


Oldtimer said:
So Texan- its OK for GW to change his position- and start negotiating and call it a "tactical decision"--but if Obama changes a position, its a flip flop :???:
Are you able to read and comprehend anything if it doesn't come from one of your liberal blogs? I've already posted part of the interview from the State Department site. Here are Secretary Rice's own words again since you're having trouble:

This is not a negotiation.

Well, what’s frustrating about that is that if people were – if people are just listening, they will hear very clearly that we are not going to negotiate on this – negotiate with the Iranians until they suspend their enrichment and reprocessing. That has been the bottom line always.

Apparently, you're one of those people who just aren't listening. :lol:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Condi says "We’re just changing our position" .( Can’t you notice the difference? :???: :roll: :wink: :lol: )
With Bush/McSame the neocons call it "policy change"- but with Obama its a flip flop :???:

Are GW and Condi now Nazi appeasers :???:

The thing is that if Obama had been President instead of King George- we probably wouldn't have been in an Iraq war- and our troops wouldn't be suffering and in greater danger in Afghanistan now because of the shortage of available "surge" troops for there...


In a surprising development in the tense American-Iranian relationship, the US announced this week that it would send a high-level State Department official to attend talks with Iranian nuclear negotiators in Switzerland over the weekend. This unexpected policy turn comes after a tense, saber rattling summer during which the US, Israel, and Iran have traded threats, staged war games, and tested weapons. But observers suggest that the shift in the US’s longstanding tactic of isolating Tehran may be motivated by a desire to ensure that other countries such as China and Russia do not make too many concessions to Iran during the negotiations.
July 17, 2008

US plans to station diplomats in Iran for first time since 1979
Washington move signals thaw in relations

Ewen MacAskill in Washington The Guardian, Thursday July 17, 2008

The US plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years as part of a remarkable turnaround in policy by President George Bush.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/usa.iran

May 15th, 2008 --During a speech in Jerusalem, President Bush jumped head first into the 2008 presidential campaign by taking a shot at Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, by comparing his willingness to hold diplomatic talks with Iran to the appeasement of Nazis in the 1930’s.

ssshhhhhhhhhh we try to talk about the new candidates, and all you can do is talk about Bush. :roll:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Texan said:
Oldtimer said:
I posted the quote- and the source...
:???: What ?!?!? That's just not true, Oldtimer. All you did was post a 'quote' - a 'quote' that apparently wasn't even true.

Thinking that you had posted a legitimate quote, I spent 20 minutes this morning trying to google around to find it - BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T POST A SOURCE. When I finally tracked it down to a mention on a liberal blog, that's when I posted the link and asked you if you had more.

I posted the 'source,' Oldtimer - not you. :???:

This is why I have been saying OT has gone off the left deep end. He has even adapted their techniques. He is nothing but a far left loon that has lost all crediability on here.

I even bet the locals keep changing the coffee drinking hang out with out telling OT to get away from him.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aplusmnt said:
Oldtimer said:
Condi says "We’re just changing our position" .( Can’t you notice the difference? :???: :roll: :wink: :lol: )
With Bush/McSame the neocons call it "policy change"- but with Obama its a flip flop :???:

Are GW and Condi now Nazi appeasers :???:

The thing is that if Obama had been President instead of King George- we probably wouldn't have been in an Iraq war- and our troops wouldn't be suffering and in greater danger in Afghanistan now because of the shortage of available "surge" troops for there...


US plans to station diplomats in Iran for first time since 1979
Washington move signals thaw in relations

Ewen MacAskill in Washington The Guardian, Thursday July 17, 2008

The US plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years as part of a remarkable turnaround in policy by President George Bush.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/usa.iran

May 15th, 2008 --During a speech in Jerusalem, President Bush jumped head first into the 2008 presidential campaign by taking a shot at Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, by comparing his willingness to hold diplomatic talks with Iran to the appeasement of Nazis in the 1930’s.

ssshhhhhhhhhh we try to talk about the new candidates, and all you can do is talk about Bush. :roll:

I do that to try and remind you neocons that Clinton was 8 years in the history--but it ain't working...

But I don't begrudge anyone for wanting to shut out these last 7+ years of King George--it has been a disgrace to not only the Republican Party but the country and world as a whole....
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
aplusmnt said:
Oldtimer said:
Condi says "We’re just changing our position" .( Can’t you notice the difference? :???: :roll: :wink: :lol: )
With Bush/McSame the neocons call it "policy change"- but with Obama its a flip flop :???:

Are GW and Condi now Nazi appeasers :???:

The thing is that if Obama had been President instead of King George- we probably wouldn't have been in an Iraq war- and our troops wouldn't be suffering and in greater danger in Afghanistan now because of the shortage of available "surge" troops for there...

ssshhhhhhhhhh we try to talk about the new candidates, and all you can do is talk about Bush. :roll:

I do that to try and remind you neocons that Clinton was 8 years in the history--but it ain't working...

But I don't begrudge anyone for wanting to shut out these last 7+ years of King George--it has been a disgrace to not only the Republican Party but the country and world as a whole....

There is a button down at bottom of the page called New Topic, feel free to start your own thread to bash Bush. It is getting so old that people try to talk about Obama and McCain and you can only talk about Bush.
 
Top