PDA

View Full Version : Unreal!... Barack Hussein Obama Tells Katie Couric the Surge Was a Bad Strategy



Frankg
07-22-2008, 07:36 PM
Unreal!... Obama Tells Katie Couric the Surge Was a Bad Strategy
Katie Couric and Barack Obama sparred over the success of the surge in an interview today.

This will be on the air tonight.

UPDATE: This was an amazing segment. Katie Couric interviewed Barack Hussein Obama and John McCain on the surge.


Barack Hussein Obama sounded TOTALLY ridiculous!
This Video Is Amazing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B7cbm68wPU&eurl=http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B7cbm68wPU&eurl=http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/)

That was an amazing segment!

CBS did an excellent job. Congratulations.

This could very well be a turning point in this year's election!

Barack Hussein Obama came off cocky, confused and crazy. McCain was wonderful- honest, humble and smart.

Here's more from Barack Hussein Obama'sfact fudging mission (http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2008/07/obamas-fact-fudging-mission-in-iraq.html)...

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA SAYS THE SURGE WAS A BAD STRATEGY!
http://bp1.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/SIZVoIhl7cI/AAAAAAAAPOo/rrbH8sCOuiQ/s400/obama+surge2.JPG (http://bp1.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/SIZVoIhl7cI/AAAAAAAAPOo/rrbH8sCOuiQ/s1600-h/obama+surge2.JPG)

Oh really?
How do you suppose he would explain these phenomenal results, then?
http://bp2.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/SIZWD1ZjkxI/AAAAAAAAPOw/39-GebBhOuI/s400/surge (http://bp2.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/SIZWD1ZjkxI/AAAAAAAAPOw/39-GebBhOuI/s1600-h/surge)
Attacks are down to record low levels since the start of the war. (Brookings (http://www.brookings.edu/saban/iraq-index.aspx))


Marc Ambinder (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/obama_spars_with_couric_over_s.php) has the highlights posted from Obama's interview tonight:


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.

Huh?

So, now Barack Hussein Obama says the Bush surge in troops worked but defeating Al-Qaeda and Iran in Iraq was not worth it?

And, if Obama believes that his plan of fleeing Iraq during the worst of the violence would have brought peace in Iraq, he is delustional.

Meanwhile, Jake Tapper (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/obama-on-the-su.html) is reproting on how Obama stole the victory away from the troops in his interview with ABC.
Here is Obama explaining the surge to Terry Moran:


"Well, you were saying that it would not make a significant dent in the violence," Moran said.

"In the violence in Iraq overall, right," Obama acknowledged. "So the point that I was making at the time was that the political dynamic was the driving force between that sectarian violence. And we could try to keep a lid on it, but if these underlining dynamic continued to bubble up and explode the way they were, then we would be in a difficult situation. I am glad that in fact those political dynamic shifted at the same time that our troops did outstanding work."



That must be Barack Hussein Obama's way of saying that he was wrong.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/

Smurf-Herder
07-22-2008, 07:51 PM
But the true misguided followers have already made up their minds.

It was bribery, not the surge, that made the difference.

Fucking idiots.

Independent Harry
07-22-2008, 07:54 PM
So then if the surge worked so well, why did we have to bribe them?

Smurf-Herder
07-22-2008, 08:01 PM
So then if the surge worked so well, why did we have to bribe them?

We didn't "bribe" them.

They are being paid as a civilian security force, fully in cooperation with the Iraqi military and police. 90,000 and they're still getting new enlistees. They work cheaper than the government employees; and these people have a direct stake in the security of their own communities - not to mention all the help they've given with tips and tactical intelligence during the offensives of last summer.

Independent Harry
07-22-2008, 08:02 PM
We didn't "bribe" them.

They are being paid as a civilian security force, fully in cooperation with the Iraqi military and police. 90,000 and they're still getting new enlistees. They work cheaper than the government employees; and these people have a direct stake in the security of their own communities - not to mention all the help they've given with tips and tactical intelligence during the offensives of last summer.

oh you mean we gave them background checks first and dindn't employ the same people that were fighting us 10 min ago?

Smurf-Herder
07-22-2008, 08:14 PM
oh you mean we gave them background checks first and dindn't employ the same people that were fighting us 10 min ago?


Actually, YES.

"Every time we get these guys that come forward -- and I'll just use the current fight: We're doing Marne Rugged, which is south of the Tigris River. We're attacking from west to east at the town of Suwayra. And as we work our way from west to east, we establish these patrol bases, and the first thing that happens is the locals come forward and say hey, I want to help. So we've got a very detailed vetting process.

First off, they're vouched for by their tribal leadership. The Sons of Iraq is tribal-based; tribal authority here is paramount, so the tribal leadership comes forward and vouches for them. That's number one. Number two is we put them into our database. We have this biometric database. We take thumbprints and fingerprints and their retinal scans, to make sure they don't show up hot in our database. And then we just watch them all the time.

My rule is we don't have concerned citizens where we can't watch them.

You know, we give them badges, we give them uniforms, and we check on them on a daily basis. And I do have a priority intelligence requirement that is focused on Sons of Iraq flipping or being infiltrated by either Shi'a extremists or Sunni extremists.

Remember, about 20 percent of my Sons of Iraq are Shi'a, and not Sunni. So we're watching for that very closely, because that is a concern. I haven't seen that, you know, over the course of the last eight months, but that doesn't mean that it won't pop up tomorrow. And then to your first question, you know, there is progress. And about a third of these bubbas want to join the Iraq security forces. They're interested in doing that and they meet the age and physical requirements. And in some cases, now, I've actually taken Sons of Iraq, been vetted by the Iraqi government and sent to Iraq police academies and have come back to be policemen in their hometowns."

http://themilitaryobserver.blogspot.com/2008/03/update-baghdad-belts-gen-rick-lynch.html

Reality4u
07-22-2008, 08:36 PM
Personally, I don't understand where BO is coming from most of the time. He says one thing one day, and something different the next. I don't believe I've ever seen a presidential candidate change his stand so many times on so many issues. The funny thing is, the media just seems to ignore it.

Smurf-Herder
07-22-2008, 08:49 PM
Personally, I don't understand where BO is coming from most of the time. He says one thing one day, and something different the next. I don't believe I've ever seen a presidential candidate change his stand so many times on so many issues. The funny thing is, the media just seems to ignore it.

Hey, the latest is (and I actually saw him saying this in a TV interview) .......

He doesn't want to be boxed in by two absolutes - having to commit to 16 months on one hand, and doing what the generals suggest on the other.

WTF does that mean? :disbelief: