Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama: surge worked. 9/4/08

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   
January 2007 on the "Today" show:
* "We're not going to baby sit a civil war."

January 10, 2007, on MSNBC:
* "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

January 10, 2007 on CNN.
* "I did not see anything in the speech or anything in the run- up to the speech that provides evidence that an additional 15,000 to 20,000 more U.S. troops is going to make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that's taking place there."

January 14, 2007 on "Face The Nation":
* "We can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground."

July 18, 2007, on the Today show:
* "My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now."

July 20, 2007 in New Hampshire:
* "Here's what we know. The surge has not worked."

September 13, 2007 at the Democratic Debate:
* "After putting an additional 30,000 troops in, far longer & more troops than the president had initially said, we have gone from a horrendous situation of violence in Iraq to the same intolerable levels of violence that we had back in June of 2006. So, essentially, after all this we're back where we were 15 months ago... So, I think it is fair to say that the president has simply tried to gain another six months to continue on the same course that he's been on for several years now. It is a course that will not succeed."

November 11, 2007 on "Meet The Press":
* "...not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there."

January 5, 2008:
* "I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence. "

January 29, 2008:
* "Tonight Pres. Bush said that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that's just not true. Yes, our valiant soldiers have helped reduce the violence. But let there be no doubt - the Iraqi government has failed to seize the moment to reach compromises necessary for an enduring peace. That was what we were told the surge was all about. So the only way we're finally going to pressure the Iraqis to reconcile and take responsibility for their future is to immediately begin a responsible withdrawal."

July 14, 2008 in a NYTimes Op-Ed:
* "In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda - greatly weakening its effectiveness. But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we've spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq's leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge."




posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Yeah, I just saw that little piece of the interview on the O'Riley factor. He said it was a success. Ugh, more politician woo-ha



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 08:07 PM
link   
I know people are going to use this to ridicule Obama, but I look at it the other way. At least he's enough of a leader to be flexible in his opinions.

Of course it may or may not be 100% for politically expediency. I don't know.

I also didn't see his exact quote. I would be more impressed if he (or any politician) would ever admit they were wrong.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   




Thats what O'Riley kept pushing. He kept asking him why he won't admit that he was wrong about the surge. I don't think any politician will ever admit to being wrong though.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by KaginD
Thats what O'Riley kept pushing. He kept asking him why he won't admit that he was wrong about the surge. I don't think any politician will ever admit to being wrong though.


Reminds me of the 2004 debates and how Bush wouldn't admit to ever making a mistake. Just more "gotcha" politics. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I think the first politician who actually stands admit and admits to making a mistake will either win in a landslide or be tarred and feathered and run out of town.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I will give Obama credit for the interview. I thought he did pretty well and am looking forward to the tougher questions that O'Riley hinted at during the rest of the interview to be aired next week.

After watching that it just makes me wonder why he avoided Fox news for so long. There is a HUGE audience out there that he has ignored. I think it's too late for him to get many of the Fox viewers votes but I applaud him for stepping up and doing the interview anyway.

I still wont be voting for him in November but he did earn some respect in my opinion.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83
I know people are going to use this to ridicule Obama, but I look at it the other way. At least he's enough of a leader to be flexible in his opinions.


It takes a leader to stand up and say "I screwed up". The good ones (Bush) quickly correct the problem(surge) and it goes away.




Of course it may or may not be 100% for politically expediency. I don't know.

I also didn't see his exact quote. I would be more impressed if he (or any politician) would ever admit they were wrong.



Others point the finger....or just squirm and drop their head...Im glad Obama second guessed his knee jerk.



[edit on 4-9-2008 by mhc_70]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anjin

After watching that it just makes me wonder why he avoided Fox news for so long.


This reflects Obama's entire problem, and to a greater extent, the problem with the Democratic party at large.

To win the nomination a candidate has to be FAR left. But to win the general election the candidate has to come back to the center.

Obama didn't do Fox because the loony wing of the party decided that if you did Fox you were a facist or something. So in a show of solidarity with the far-left wing of the party, Obama boycotted Fox.

Now he knows he's in deep trouble and has no choice.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Very interesting post. I didn't bother to watch Obama on OReilly, but I can't help but wonder how people still see this man as a "man of change" for this election. According to another poster, Obama didn't admit he was wrong but finally said the surge worked. Some change.

Do you remember some months ago when Obama made all of those excuses about the surge? He said he didn't give credit to the surge working, but to Sunni warlords who happened to fall into line at the same time as the surge. So I wonder why he changed his position?

I'm also wondering where our liberal audience is on this thread.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Republicans, cleaning up their spilled milk in what is only part of a much larger mess of theirs?

Tell me, why are we in Iraq again? I dont want to hear about the surge, I want to hear about why the hell we're in Iraq.

Too many people are covering Bushes ass for stupid partisan reasons.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by southern_Guardian

Tell me, why are we in Iraq again? I dont want to hear about the surge, I want to hear about why the hell we're in Iraq.

Too many people are covering Bushes ass for stupid partisan reasons.


They must also be covering for...



President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.
"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."


source


Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."


source


Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."


source


Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."


Many more dems agreed with the Iraq war resolution


Then theres this...

July. 5, 2008
The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.


source

What they don't say is yellow cake uranium is the seed of weapons grade uranium, the kind Iran is currently developing.


On November 5, 1998 a Federal grand jury in Manhattan returned a 238-count indictment charging Osama bin Laden in the bombings of two United States Embassies in Africa and with conspiring to commit other acts of terrorism against Americans abroad. The grand jury indictment also charged that Al-Qaeda had reached an arrangement with President Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq whereby the group said that it would not work against Iraq, and that the two parties agreed to cooperate in the development of weapons.

On January 11, 1999, Newsweek magazine ran the headline "Saddam + Bin Laden?" The subheadline declared, "It would be a marriage made in hell. And America's two enemies are courting." The article points out that Saddam has a long history of supporting terrorism. The article also mentions that, in the prior week, several surface-to-air missiles were fired at U.S. and British planes patrolling the no-fly zones and that Saddam is now fighting for his life now that the United States has made his removal from office a national objective.

On January 14, 1999, ABC News reported, "Saddam Hussein has a long history of harboring terrorists. Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, the most notorious terrorists of their era, all found shelter and support at one time in Baghdad. Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction."

On February 13, 1999, CNN reported, "Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire accused by the United States of plotting bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, has left Afghanistan, Afghan sources said Saturday. Bin Laden's whereabouts were not known....." The article reports, "Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden....."

On February 28, 1999, an article was written in The Kansas City Star which said, "He [bin Laden] has a private fortune ranging from $250 million to $500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the United States....."

On April 8, 2001, an informant for Czech counter-intelligence observed an Iraqi intelligence official named al-Ani meeting with an Arab man in his 20s at a restaurant outside Prague. Following the 9/11 attacks, the Czech informant who observed the meeting saw Mohammed Atta’s picture in the papers and identified Mohammed Atta as the man who met with the Iraqi intelligence official.

After the 9/11 attacks, Saddam became the only world leader to offer praise for bin Laden, even as other terrorist leaders, like Yassir Arafat, went out of their way to make a show of sympathy to the U.S. by donating blood to 9/11 victims on camera. Saddam later pays tribute to 9/11 by having a mural painted depicting the World Trade Center attack at an Iraqi military base in Nasariyah.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan, fled to Iraq after being injured as the Taliban fell (prior to the U.S./Iraq war). He received medical care and convalesced for two months in Baghdad. He then opened a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan

CIA director George Tenet (appointed by President Bill Clinton July 11, 1997) wrote in a letter to Senator Bob Graham dated October 7, 2002. "We have solid reporting of senior level contact between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information exists that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. . . . We have credible reporting that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities.




source



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
Republicans, cleaning up their spilled milk in what is only part of a much larger mess of theirs?

Tell me, why are we in Iraq again? I dont want to hear about the surge, I want to hear about why the hell we're in Iraq.

Too many people are covering Bushes ass for stupid partisan reasons.


This thread is about the surge and Obama can't bring himself to admit he was wrong.

What you posted is off-topic and a LAME attempt to derail the thread because you know the subject matter proves your candidate is nothing more than a typical politician.

Again, I ask where are the mods for deleting off topic posts?



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


So you dont know why we're there?


just classic, really


The surge certainly has plently to do with the Iraq war. Before you can actually claim victory for this "surge", tell us why we are in iraq? The original arguement was WMDs, yet there isnt any WMDs, never has been for over a decade now, so tell me sos, why are we there?



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   
I really hope you are not that daft.

There were many reasons for the Iraq war, WMDs' was just one.

What would you call 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium?

Combined with the fact the Saddam had produced and used WMDs' before, Iraq posed a serious threat and Saddam showed no desire to co-operate with the UN after 11 years of sanctions and repeated requests to allow inspectors in.

He had the technology and ability to build them any time he wanted.

There are also many reports connecting Saddam to al qaida.

Back to the topic.

Why do you feel it was so hard for Obama to admit that the surge was successful?



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 



Do you remember some months ago when Obama made all of those excuses about the surge? He said he didn't give credit to the surge working, but to Sunni warlords who happened to fall into line at the same time as the surge. So I wonder why he changed his position?


The funny thing is that he still claims, "the Sunni awakening happened before the surge". That is complete bull flop! The Sunni Awakening has only been a success, because the Sunnis saw that we were staying and would back them up against the AQ in Anbar. Not only is this information readily available, but any talk with Soldiers or Marines in the area would confirm it.

My best friend and my little brother have both been Marines, helping to get Anbar/Ramadi stable for the last few years. They will tell you that there is no way we would have stabilized that area without the surge. The surge was a HUGE factor in the Sunnis working with us so closely.

The fact that I know this and Obama doesn't, is pretty freaking disturbing.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by mhc_70
 


Obama has changed his mind and I can respect that. Maintaining your ground even when presented with new information to the contrary is foolhardy. I applaud any politician or anyone for that matter who can take a new or second look at data or information, admit they were wrong and adjust their view accordingly.

I can admit that the surge has made improvements but I think Obama and anyone else who says that it 'worked', is not looking at the big picture. I think it is very premature to say that the conflict in Iraq is a success or that the surge has worked. There is a lot going on in the Middle East and less we forget about the Israel/Iran issue.

The surge may have slowed the violence but we are now drawing back the troops somewhat and we have yet to see if the violence returns when the troop levels start to fall. I would hate to see another 'Mission Accomplished" banner. I think that is the fallacy here, the surge worked at quieting violence in the short term but the goals set by the admin are not complete. And the benchmarks that were touted as success have also not be accomplished

Fact of the matter we should never have been in Iraq to start, so success will be judged on a wildly sliding scale. And with that said, I'm not sure what is meant by 'winning' the war in Iraq and I dont think any politicians do either. My personal opinion is that we should have never been in Iraq and now I feel like we should be getting our troops out as quickly and safely as possible. We should have done this years ago, when all the reasons for going in were debunked.


And to comment on mhc_70s post on all the people who thought there were WMD in Iraq, many of these claims were made before the UN weapons inspectors had finished there work. Scott Ritter a top UN weapons inspector was speaking in every venue he could in the run up to war, stating that Iraq did NOT have WMD. It is not as though there were not dissenting opinions about the existence of WMD.
So, yes, many politicians thought there were WMD in Iraq, people are allowed to be wrong it happens and some of these same people listed in quotes have changed their positions when presented with new information.

And to comment on your post about yellow-cake being found in Iraq. Maybe you should have read the rest of your own article. You completely misrepresented the article.


Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam's nuclear efforts.

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.


This yellow cake you are refering to was known by everyone including UN weapons inspectors. This was not new information and was known. This yellow cake had been stored, aging in drums. No one denies that Saddam had used chemical agents and had sought nuclear material before the first gulf war but since 1991 it was all stored, contained and monitored by the UN. Not to mention, the quality of that particular yellow cake is in question because of it being poorly stored.

At that point, U.S.-led crews began removing the yellowcake from the Saddam-era containers — some leaking or weakened by corrosion


Scott Ritter



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by mhc_70
 



What would you call 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium?


I will call it false information, see my post from above.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by mhc_70
 


Obama has changed his mind and I can respect that. Maintaining your ground even when presented with new information to the contrary is foolhardy. I applaud any politician or anyone for that matter who can take a new or second look at data or information, admit they were wrong and adjust their view accordingly.

I can admit that the surge has made improvements but I think Obama and anyone else who says that it 'worked', is not looking at the big picture. I think it is very premature to say that the conflict in Iraq is a success or that the surge has worked. There is a lot going on in the Middle East and less we forget about the Israel/Iran issue.

The surge may have slowed the violence but we are now drawing back the troops somewhat and we have yet to see if the violence returns when the troop levels start to fall. I would hate to see another 'Mission Accomplished" banner. I think that is the fallacy here, the surge worked at quieting violence in the short term but the goals set by the admin are not complete. And the benchmarks that were touted as success have also not be accomplished.


The "surge" was about more than just the addition of troops. It was also a change in strategy, something that has been evolving over the last 7 years. Before the surge, an area was cleared of insurgency, but after we left to patrol and clear another area, the insurgents moved in behind us. The surge allowed us to leave men stationed to hold the areas and keep them clear. This gave the Shia and Sunnis the feeling of secutrity they needed to turn on the insurgents. It also gave them the time and security needed to develop there own police/military force, the Anbar province was just turned over to Iraq security. Thats success. Iraqs' securing their own democratic, however that ends up looking, society and an ally to the US.


Originally posted by iamcamouflage
Fact of the matter we should never have been in Iraq to start, so success will be judged on a wildly sliding scale. And with that said, I'm not sure what is meant by 'winning' the war in Iraq and I dont think any politicians do either. My personal opinion is that we should have never been in Iraq and now I feel like we should be getting our troops out as quickly and safely as possible. We should have done this years ago, when all the reasons for going in were debunked.


This opinion will be on the wrong side of history, IMO ofcourse.


Originally posted by iamcamouflage
And to comment on mhc_70s post on all the people who thought there were WMD in Iraq, many of these claims were made before the UN weapons inspectors had finished there work. Scott Ritter a top UN weapons inspector was speaking in every venue he could in the run up to war, stating that Iraq did NOT have WMD. It is not as though there were not dissenting opinions about the existence of WMD.
So, yes, many politicians thought there were WMD in Iraq, people are allowed to be wrong it happens and some of these same people listed in quotes have changed their positions when presented with new information.


Fact is Saddam had developed and used WMDs' many, many times before and was not co-operating with the inspectors.


Originally posted by iamcamouflage
And to comment on your post about yellow-cake being found in Iraq. Maybe you should have read the rest of your own article. You completely misrepresented the article.


How did I mis-represent the article in context to a reason for the Iraq war?

Was it not developed by Saddam while in control of Iraq?



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by mhc_70
 



How did I mis-represent the article in context to a reason for the Iraq war?

Was it not developed by Saddam while in control of Iraq?


Yes but this was yellow cake that was safe guarded by the UN and under their control. It was known by all and was not considered a threat. You misrepresented the article by implying that this was the WMD that we went to war over. Not true. This yellow cake was not a threat, it was under the control of the UN.


Fact is Saddam had developed and used WMDs' many, many times before and was not co-operating with the inspectors.


Scott Ritter and Hans Blix will tell you differently but what would they know. They were never able to finish their inspections because the US decided not to let them finish their work.

Hans Blix

[edit on 7-9-2008 by iamcamouflage]



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by mhc_70
 



How did I mis-represent the article in context to a reason for the Iraq war?

Was it not developed by Saddam while in control of Iraq?




Originally posted by iamcamouflage
Yes but this was yellow cake that was safe guarded by the UN and under their control. It was known by all and was not considered a threat. You misrepresented the article by implying that this was the WMD that we went to war over. Not true. This yellow cake was not a threat, it was under the control of the UN.


The point is that Saddam was the real threat.


Fact is Saddam had developed and used WMDs' many, many times before and was not co-operating with the inspectors.


Scott Ritter and Hans Blix will tell you differently but what would they know. They were never able to finish their inspections because the US decided not to let them finish their work.

Hans Blix



Sorry I really hacked up that post, lol.
[edit on 7-9-2008 by mhc_70]

[edit on 7-9-2008 by mhc_70]





new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join