[stupendousman]

From the O'Reilly Report:

"'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.'"

Um...Barry...there was a guy who has always said this was the way to go. He's the guy who has experience in these matters and didn't advise that we just throw in the towel. His name is John McCain.

Remember when we were all told that this election would be a mandate on the war? Uh...yeah, maybe it will be.

[goMac]

You know Republicans don't have any new material when...

Seriously. This was the "hot topic" months ago. Is there really no other new dirt on Obama?

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by goMac 

You know Republicans don't have any new material when...

Seriously. This was the "hot topic" months ago. Is there really no other new dirt on Obama?

You know Libs don't have new material when...

Seriously. Can't the Messiah followers acknowledge that their whole basis for winning this election was based on the war being a failure. Now that it isn't, they are screwed.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

You know Libs don't have new material when...

Seriously. Can't the Messiah followers acknowledge that their whole basis for winning this election was based on the war being a failure. Now that it isn't, they are screwed.

You're right the surge worked. And because it worked, we can leave now like McCain promised.

After all, the surge was successful in getting rid of the terrorists, right?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

You know Libs don't have new material when...

Seriously. Can't the Messiah followers acknowledge that their whole basis for winning this election was based on the war being a failure. Now that it isn't, they are screwed.

Too true. Even CODE PINK can't help them. McCain pwned them tonight too.

Now apparently Obama says that the election will be about "the economy" and how he plans on stimulating it by raising taxes, doing little to nothing to help with high oil prices and plans helping to send jobs overseas by being anti-business.

GOOD LUCK!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by goMac 

You're right the surge worked. And because it worked, we can leave now like McCain promised.

After all, the surge was successful in getting rid of the terrorists, right?

We've already given back some of the territory to the Iraqis and the generals on the ground are looking at sending more troops home soon.

The point is that if Obama were in charge, it would still be a huge mess over in Iraq. He simply doesn't have the balls or experience to know what to do when doing the right thing is important.

I guarantee you that they did polling that showed the McCain was starting to eat Obama's lunch on the war issue and the reason he went on O'Reilly and essentially admitted he was wrong was to make it possible to try and diffuse the issue, just as was likely done when he flip-flopped on allowing off-shore drilling.

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by goMac 

You're right the surge worked. And because it worked, we can leave now like McCain promised.

After all, the surge was successful in getting rid of the terrorists, right?

You get the Messiah's talking points don't you? Look, I don't claim to know all the dynamics of what is going on over there. I do know that the right move was made with the surge, and McCain was on the right side of that. As soon as Obama can admit he was wrong, I might consider him not to be so much of a douche.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

We've already given back some of the territory to the Iraqis and the generals on the ground are looking at sending more troops home soon.

That's funny. I thought McCain said he's not interested in withdrawing troops?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The point is that if Obama were in charge, it would still be a huge mess over in Iraq. He simply doesn't have the balls or experience to know what to do when doing the right thing is important.

No, here's the deal. The surge is just a band aid. You take the band aid off, and the problem is still there. That's why your messiah McCain doesn't want to withdraw. He knows the surge hasn't worked, and as soon as he pulls back those troops, the entire world is going to see that it didn't work.

[Lint Police]

It's cute how you used the word Messiah. The libs are following a cult, not the other way around.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

It's cute how you used the word Messiah. The libs are following a cult, not the other way around.

Says the person who doesn't have anything real to back up what he's saying besides hyperbole...

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Says the person who doesn't have anything real to back up what he's saying besides hyperbole...

I said I don't claim to know all. I do claim to know what I see as bull though. I can relate to someone like Mrs Palin and Mr. McCain. They at least don't seem to promise me the world like some other group.

By all rights the libs should be winning this election hands down. They don't get it though that most Americans just want to be left alone, and not be told that their life sucks.

[Gee-Man]

Unfortunately, words can't adequately describe how wrong you are. Maybe the following cartoon will explain things better:



Obama is right, as he was from the start. The "surge" aka escalation, isn't a strategy for victory, it's a Band-Aid on the most horrific foreign policy blunder in American history. So instead of the mind-blowing casualty rates of 2005-2006, we're down to the merely horrific casualty rates of 2003-2004. After over 4,000 dead Americans and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, all lost in the invasion and occupation of a country where we found no threat to us, it's astounding that anyone would still have the gall to claim that all this was a good idea.

FYI, we lost 23 more brave soldiers last month. An "improvement" for sure, but nowhere near a justification for the horrible, bloody, and costly disaster that has been the Iraq War from the start. Preening about the "surge" while our soldiers, not to mention Iraqi civilians, are at this very moment dying and getting wounded in large numbers, is sick. Come back when the casualty rate is 0 - after Obama is elected to stop this madness.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

I said I don't claim to know all. I do claim to know what I see as bull though. I can relate to someone like Mrs Palin and Mr. McCain. They at least don't seem to promise me the world like some other group.

I don't think anyone seriously thinks Obama can accomplish everything he is talking about. But unlike the Republicans, he's actually interested in making progress.

I'm not going to pay for a President to sit around in office and twiddle his thumbs.

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

By all rights the libs should be winning this election hands down. They don't get it though that most Americans just want to be left alone, and not be told that their life sucks.

You're right. They like to be called whiners instead.

[hyteckit]

You guys need to listen to the liberal media or what it's called: facts

Obama might be against the war and invading Iraq, but he did vote to fund the troops with restrictions.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...p_support.html

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

You know Libs don't have new material when...

Seriously. Can't the Messiah followers acknowledge that their whole basis for winning this election was based on the war being a failure. Now that it isn't, they are screwed.

People who favor Obama are doing so based on the "war being a failure"? Really?!?

I have heard far MORE talk from Obamaniacs about the economy and pocketbook issues than I have regarding the war in Iraq. Whenever it comes to a conflict between guns and butter--to borrow an over-wrought and over-used metaphor--butter always wins out. You know why, people can't eat guns. To get away from that terrible metaphor, at the end of the day if Americans are more concerned about where their next meal/paycheck/fill-up/mortgage payment are coming from rather than who is going to win a war in a faraway land, focusing on that war is not a good way to get people to vote for you. If you look at any type of data that measure's American's major concerns, pocket-book issues are much higher on the list than war issues. So, you might want to consider why one candidate focused much more on economic issues than military issues. To paraphrase likable but not very good former President, "Its the economy, stupid!"

[Lint Police]

Once again. Libs don't get it. I don't need your help. I need you to get the hell out of the way and stop spending my money on people too ****ing lazy to work.

It is going to backfire on you again. You talk down to the middle of the country when in fact, we just want to be left alone and let build our businesses and our lives the way we want, not like you want us too. We are not lazy, like most of your voting demographic.

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You guys need to listen to the liberal media or what it's called: facts

Obama might be against the war and invading Iraq, but he did vote to fund the troops with restrictions.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...p_support.html

He only did that because it would have been political suicide not to. At least that is what the polls told him.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

People who favor Obama are doing so based on the "war being a failure"? Really?!?

I have heard far MORE talk from Obamaniacs about the economy and pocketbook issues than I have regarding the war in Iraq. Whenever it comes to a conflict between guns and butter--to borrow an over-wrought and over-used metaphor--butter always wins out. You know why, people can't eat guns. To get away from that terrible metaphor, at the end of the day if Americans are more concerned about where their next meal/paycheck/fill-up/mortgage payment are coming from rather than who is going to win a war in a faraway land, focusing on that war is not a good way to get people to vote for you. If you look at any type of data that measure's American's major concerns, pocket-book issues are much higher on the list than war issues. So, you might want to consider why one candidate focused much more on economic issues than military issues. To paraphrase likable but not very good former President, "Its the economy, stupid!"

Republicans would rather harm Americans than lose their precious war.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

He only did that because it would have been political suicide not to. At least that is what the polls told him.

Oh look, a whiny conservative who doesn't have his facts straight.

What's new?

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Republicans would rather harm Americans than lose their precious war.

Wow.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Republicans would rather harm Americans than lose their precious war.

That's just a dumb mindless statement intended to be inflammatory.


The problem with the Republicans is that over the past two decades they have gotten themselves so caught up in the culture wars and social policy concerns (abortion, gay rights, gun rights, flag-burning, flag-pin-wearing, freedom fries, etc.) they have forgotten that issues like economic stability are usually more important to citizens on an everyday basis. I think most current Republicans have forgotten how to focus on pocket-book issues because they feel beholden to a small but vocal segment of the population that care about only a few select social policy issues. But you can be damn sure that even the most ardent social conservative will forget about their pet causes when they can't keep a job or put food on their table or they can't keep a roof over their heads. And those types of problems are increasing for everyone. The economy is not doing well right now and people in need want to know their leaders are working to both address and remedy these economic problems.

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Oh look, a whiny conservative who doesn't have his facts straight.

What's new?

Someone that doesn't agree with your view Obama and his wrong view of the war is whiny? OK.

[besson3c]

we've been through this before, haven't we stupendousman?

What the problem is here is our definition of success and failure in the context of just what we hope to accomplish in Iraq at this juncture.

The surge was designed to give the Iraqis more time to get their act together. We can keep throwing more resources (i.e. troops) at the violence over there and this will quell it to some extent, any moron could figure that out, this was never disputed. However, this is obviously not sustainable, it is a temporary thing. If you want to define success as "we've temporarily quelled violence", feel free, but you're spinning your tires. Whether the peace will remain after we've left is yet to be seen. If you want to define success in terms of asking whether Iraq has gotten their act together, clearly they haven't because we are still there.

The problem with the Republicans I've been listening to is that their statements are extremely intellectually lazy to the point of being manipulative.

[hyteckit]

Success:

Gambling away your house, your family, and your job.

Still have your car - SUCCESS!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by goMac 

That's funny. I thought McCain said he's not interested in withdrawing troops?

Not prematurely, before the generals on the ground say that things are stable enough. Obama wanted to pull out regardless of the situation and leave the area unstable, threatening our security.

No, here's the deal. The surge is just a band aid. You take the band aid off, and the problem is still there. That's why your messiah McCain doesn't want to withdraw. He knows the surge hasn't worked, and as soon as he pulls back those troops, the entire world is going to see that it didn't work.

Even Obama admits now the surge has worked. The surge provided relative peace and stability to provide time for the Iraqis to be able provide their own security. You can't train and organize to defend yourself when those who are supposed to be doing it are dodged bombs and rockets.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

Obama is right, as he was from the start. The "surge" aka escalation, isn't a strategy for victory,

Obama now disagrees with you. He says that the surge has worked.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The surge was designed to give the Iraqis more time to get their act together. We can keep throwing more resources (i.e. troops) at the violence over there and this will quell it to some extent, any moron could figure that out, this was never disputed.

YES, IT WAS. Obama disputed it and even now says that no one could have imagined the surge working as well as it did. HE STILL DOESN'T GET IT, and apparently even you agree. Based on your comments, Obama would have to be a "moron". I tend to agree as well. At least as far as his abilities as a "commander in chief" go.

However, this is obviously not sustainable, it is a temporary thing.

....as it was always intended to be.

If you want to define success as "we've temporarily quelled violence", feel free, but you're spinning your tires. Whether the peace will remain after we've left is yet to be seen. If you want to define success in terms of asking whether Iraq has gotten their act together, clearly they haven't because we are still there.

...but all indications show that we are preparing to start leaving soon. In the past we heard about how nothing could be done in Iraq. It was a civil war quagmire that couldn't be helped by sending more troops. Obama had no idea that properly manning the forces would cause the violence to stop and give the Iraqi people time to build their own forces. Now we are told.."okay, all that other stuff we said was pessimistic and proven wrong, but believe us now that with our help the Iraqis can't govern themselves".

Fool me once....

[Ghoser777]

I think Barack's argument boils down to this: he believes that the Anwar Awakening (that preceded the surge by a couple of months) enabled the surge to be as "successful" as it has been. The counter argument to surging is that if we had started to withdraw, the Iraq's would continue to take more responsibility for their safety and really begin to "Stand Up". That argument, unfortunately, is impossible to make politically because any time you don't give the troops 100% credit for anything, you're "clearly" trying to undermine the troops.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

You know Republicans don't have any new material when...

Seriously. This was the "hot topic" months ago. Is there really no other new dirt on Obama?

This was in response to an interview aired last night.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Says the person who doesn't have anything real to back up what he's saying besides hyperbole...

What real thing have you said? Show me where McCain said he wasn't interested in withdrawing troops.

Oh and... by goMac. This is generally where I don't hear back.

[stupendousman]

Yeah..this was just last night. He finally admitted that he was wrong about the surge (sort of) but still doesn't understand what Besson points out as a moronic misunderstanding of the military.

He's half-way there. Maybe in another 8 years he'll finally be ready for "prime time"?

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Obama now disagrees with you. He says that the surge has worked.

No, we're saying the same thing. McCain says the surge is everything, that it's the reason why we will "win". Obama says it's not enough, and even if it was, it will not undo the harm we've done by going into Iraq in the first place. You can reduce the violence (which by the way he's said before, not just on O'Really last night), but it's not a strategy, it's a tactic. If the strategy sucks, tweaking tactics won't make a major difference.

That's the problem with McCain's overall view of the war - he's all about tactics, and nothing about strategy. What is his plan to help the Iraqi government settle their differences? What is his plan after the surge troops draw down and the violence goes back up (as we've seen already)? What is the next level of counter-insurgency plan? How will we fund the various groups that are now ethnically divided due to the Awakening? What is the long-term exit plan, other than waiting until something good happens at some undetermined date?

A Commander in Chief is supposed to be good at determining overall strategy, not nitpicking individual tactics like the surge. This is the reason why I think so many generals support Obama - they see in him a guy who's much better at setting up the vision and big picture about military matters, while McCain, even with all his military background, is basically a glorified foot solider, maybe a field general at best. He hasn't shown any real knack for strategy, given how often he was wrong about how the war was going and what we should do about it for the past 7 years.

The only way to "win", strategically, is to get out as orderly as we can at this point, and help the Iraqis stabilize their security in the process as much as we can. Staying indefinitely until magic ponies make the insurgents run and hide and suddenly stop fighting isn't a strategy.

As the cartoon parable I posted illustrates - you guys keep wanting to talk about the fact that a couple of orphans survived when you crashed the car through the building and killed almost everybody. That doesn't make the disaster a "success", only makes it slightly less disastrous. Obama sees this, McCain can't.

[ort888]

I challenge McCain to into such a hostile interview environment. Every question asked by O'Reilly was an attempt to trip Obama up. It's like a debate where one side doesn't even have to give an answer.

While Obama is willing to go on O'Reilly and be asked a neverending stream of leading questions designed to bait him into looking foolish by a man who hates everything he stands for...

McCain refused to go on Larry King because a reporter asked one of his staffers to many difficult questions about Sarah Palin.

[Chuckit]

We need to bear in mind that the surge and the war in general are two very different things. I have always opposed the war in Iraq, but I thought the surge was a good idea since we were already stuck there and needed to make the best of a bad situation.

Also, I think it's admirable that Obama can admit when he's wrong — lots of people here could learn from his example. Nobody is right all the time, and the more somebody tries to convince you of it, the less you should trust him.

[lpkmckenna]

On youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJWqNRVbxgQ

So I just finished watching it. Kinda dull. Why ask questions with such predictable answers?

[iomatic]

Quoted O'Reilly.

/end thread.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

No, we're saying the same thing.

No, Obama said the surge wouldn't work and now says it's worked better than anyone (except of course McCain already knew it) expected.

The message has changed and the goal posts moved back. It's clear that polling data has shown that the war issue has hurt Obama.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Also, I think it's admirable that Obama can admit when he's wrong — lots of people here could learn from his example. Nobody is right all the time, and the more somebody tries to convince you of it, the less you should trust him.

I agree 100%. I actually wouldn't have even mentioned his appearance negatively had it not been the case that despite essentially admitting he was wrong, he had to qualify his answer with another falsehood - that no one would have expected the surge to work so well. He knows that the surge is exactly what McCain said should be done back when he was bad mouthing it. He made an admission that he was wrong, while making a false statement. It's a wash.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No, Obama said the surge wouldn't work and now says it's worked better than anyone (except of course McCain already knew it) expected.

The message has changed and the goal posts moved back. It's clear that polling data has shown that the war issue has hurt Obama.

You are becoming very repetitive. Instead of just turning up the volume on what you have been saying all along, why not address what has actually been said in response to your claims thus far?

[olePigeon]

While I agree that Hot Fuzz was a non-stop thrill ride of excitement, how can the war be a success if the (now) entire premise was to build a democracy?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You are becoming very repetitive. Instead of just turning up the volume on what you have been saying all along, why not address what has actually been said in response to your claims thus far?

If people would stop saying the same stupid and false things over and over, the volume would stay at the same level.

The argument is fallacious at the outset. Once that is illustrated, there is no need to go and debate the extraneous stuff used to distract from the main issue.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by goMac 

You're right the surge worked. And because it worked, we can leave now like McCain promised.

This is a valid argument, and one that Republicans need to be cautious of whenever they attempt to use it in McCain's favor.