O'Reilly: Obama admits surge has succeeded

T

thrustbucket

CAGiversary!
Feedback
7 (100%)
I don't know how much this is new news or not, but it hit drudgereport and I found it interesting. Tonight on the Factor, Obama apparently says the surge has been a "success beyond our wildest dreams".

Now I am not an Obama supporter, as you all know. But this is very admirable. I need to see the interview in context, but if he keeps talking like this, he will truly bridge parties and win some conservatives.

Just want everyone to know that I am not anti-obama. I am not so biased that I can't sing someone's praises I don't agree with often. I admire him greatly for saying this, and it shows that he's an upstanding guy.

So say we all.
 
To me this is only a big deal if you agree with the war in the first place. Otherwise it's an accomplishment in something you don't agree with anyway.

I'll admit that they accomplished what they wanted, but i never thought we should have been there in the first place.
 
The surge is not the war. I don't remember much of anyone claiming the surge was a failure, although the war as a whole is.
 
Democrats in congress and the Senate have been arguing that it was a failure, or inconsequential. Obama is showing that he can acknowledge success by the other side. Which is going to be key for a leader that wants to bridge gaps.
 
Well, the Iraqi Government does have a surplus and just made a big contract deal with China. So...at least they know how to sign stuff. I think everyone agrees that Iraq needs to get off their asses and work for once. But if we leave, and it falls apart, we'll end up going back in there again, and it'll be worse than what it was the first time.
 
I think the new military leaders did a good job (and of course the soldiers deserve a hell of alot of credit too).

But to the political leadership I say 'even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while'
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I don't know how much this is new news or not, but it hit drudgereport and I found it interesting. Tonight on the Factor, Obama apparently says the surge has been a "success beyond our wildest dreams".

Now I am not an Obama supporter, as you all know. But this is very admirable. I need to see the interview in context, but if he keeps talking like this, he will truly bridge parties and win some conservatives.

Just want everyone to know that I am not anti-obama. I am not so biased that I can't sing someone's praises I don't agree with often. I admire him greatly for saying this, and it shows that he's an upstanding guy.

So say we all.[/QUOTE]

To bad its not true. The surge was 1 of like 5 major parts that resulted in a success the Awakening played a much larger role, the surge just happened to come along at the right time.

Also funny that you like a guy when he agrees with you........again prooving what iv said about you(and dont go off on a devils advocate rant, its just not true).
 
[quote name='Koggit']The surge is not the war. I don't remember much of anyone claiming the surge was a failure, although the war as a whole is.[/QUOTE]

QFT.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']To bad its not true. The surge was 1 of like 5 major parts that resulted in a success the Awakening played a much larger role, the surge just happened to come along at the right time.

Also funny that you like a guy when he agrees with you........again prooving what iv said about you(and dont go off on a devils advocate rant, its just not true).[/QUOTE]

Shhhhh, just tell them it worked so well we can leave now.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Shhhhh, just tell them it worked so well we can leave now.[/QUOTE]

Sometimes I think thats why liberals are saying the surge worked......then I realize most liberals are still spineless worms that cant stand up for whats right whenever it means going against an assumed majority.
 
Has the "surge" succeeded? Maybe.

Has violence gone down? Undoubtedly.

Was the war still a mistake? Is the war still a mistake? Were we still deliberately misled by those with ties and backgrounds in the kinds of corporations who have become massively, embarrassingly profitable over the past 8 years (while the rest of us have suffered) to believe that this war was justified? Well, I never bought a bit of it in the first place, but that doesn't change the fact that we were lied into this war.

The ends don't justify the means. This war was and is an error and a lie.

Those people who perpetrated this war in positions of power and influence (the Bush administration) are still wholly responsible for the very poor lack of judgment, foresight, denial, and obedience to ideology over experience that led to understaffing Iraq in the first place (and the resignation of Gen. Eric Shinseki for speaking out and against being understaffed).

The "surge" brought the military up to the capacity Shinseki asked for in the first fucking place. Meeting people's base expectations 5 years after you promised them is hardly something worth applauding.

Support the troops: bring them home. Even the Iraqi government supports that notion now.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I don't know how much this is new news or not, but it hit drudgereport and I found it interesting. Tonight on the Factor, Obama apparently says the surge has been a "success beyond our wildest dreams".

Now I am not an Obama supporter, as you all know. But this is very admirable. I need to see the interview in context, but if he keeps talking like this, he will truly bridge parties and win some conservatives.

Just want everyone to know that I am not anti-obama. I am not so biased that I can't sing someone's praises I don't agree with often. I admire him greatly for saying this, and it shows that he's an upstanding guy.

So say we all.[/QUOTE]

It is called politics.. Take it all with a grain of salt
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't Colin Powell even say that there weren't enough troops sent originally?[/QUOTE]
The "surge" are what troop levels should've been all along. And the situation in Afghanistan has suffered as a result of troops being diverted away.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']The "surge" are what troop levels should've been all along. And the situation in Afghanistan has suffered as a result of troops being diverted away.[/QUOTE]

Indeed.



As for the war in general, I always hear a lot of "we never should have been there" talk (which I agree with), but it doesn't matter now, the next president has to pick up the pieces. If you break something, you should at least pick up the pieces. The surge is part of that and I think it's a step in the direction Iraq needs to go.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']
Also funny that you like a guy when he agrees with you........again prooving what iv said about you(and dont go off on a devils advocate rant, its just not true).[/QUOTE]

LoL.

For the upteenth time today, you made a massive false assumption about me. Guess it's clear now that's your M.O. Where did I state what my view on the surge was? Oh, that's right, I didn't. But you thought the creation of this thread was a statement about my position on the surge, right? What is that called in first year critical thinking class? That's right, A S S U M P T I O N.

All I said was that it's respectable of Obama to admit something the Republican party runs around in circles as their only real accomplishment of the past year (which is an arguable accomplishment).

Let us know when you are back on earth from planet ASSume.

[quote name='mykevermin']Has the "surge" succeeded? Maybe.

Has violence gone down? Undoubtedly.

Was the war still a mistake? Is the war still a mistake? Were we still deliberately misled by those with ties and backgrounds in the kinds of corporations who have become massively, embarrassingly profitable over the past 8 years (while the rest of us have suffered) to believe that this war was justified? Well, I never bought a bit of it in the first place, but that doesn't change the fact that we were lied into this war.

The ends don't justify the means. This war was and is an error and a lie.

Those people who perpetrated this war in positions of power and influence (the Bush administration) are still wholly responsible for the very poor lack of judgment, foresight, denial, and obedience to ideology over experience that led to understaffing Iraq in the first place (and the resignation of Gen. Eric Shinseki for speaking out and against being understaffed).

The "surge" brought the military up to the capacity Shinseki asked for in the first fucking place. Meeting people's base expectations 5 years after you promised them is hardly something worth applauding.[/quote]
Agreed. But now that your done with the hindsight binoculars....

Support the troops: bring them home. Even the Iraqi government supports that notion now.
Click to expand...
Do you really believe, say, bringing home every troop in Iraq by Christmas (just throwing it out there) would be a good idea for all involved?
Do you really believe the Iraqi government wants that?
I honestly don't have a strong opinion on this matter, as I'm not expert on all the intricacies, complications, domino effects, and potential risks in doing so. But you seem to have a strong opinion, so what do you really think?

About all I do think on this matter is the Iraqi government has to sell their own people on their effort to get the troops out. But popular public opinion and whispered back-room necessity are likely two different things. Nobody wants troops there one more day. But much like driving your SUV into a van full of disabled kids, is it really a good idea to leave the scene of the accident before you do all you can to make things right?
 
Yyyyyeeeeah. Not what I said. I support the 16-month withdrawal timeline Obama proposed and Al-Maliki backs. The same one the sitting president opposes for no good reason (save for declining quarterly profits for KBR).
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']As for the war in general, I always hear a lot of "we never should have been there" talk (which I agree with), but it doesn't matter now, the next president has to pick up the pieces. If you break something, you should at least pick up the pieces. The surge is part of that and I think it's a step in the direction Iraq needs to go.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

[quote name='thrustbucket']Agreed. But now that your done with the hindsight binoculars...[/QUOTE]

"Hindsight" nuthin'. Half the country has been saying what Myke said and what you just agreed with from the moment "shock and awe" was announced. It's only hindsight to people who clamped their hands over their ears whenever someone questioned the war.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Yyyyyeeeeah. Not what I said. I support the 16-month withdrawal timeline Obama proposed and Al-Maliki backs. The same one the sitting president opposes for no good reason (save for declining quarterly profits for KBR).[/QUOTE]
Oh ok.

[quote name='trq']
"Hindsight" nuthin'. Half the country has been saying what Myke said and what you just agreed with from the moment "shock and awe" was announced. It's only hindsight to people who clamped their hands over their ears whenever someone questioned the war.[/QUOTE]

Doesn't matter. Analyzing the past for pointing fingers has never done anyone any good. Both parties do it, and I get really sick of it. The one who stands up and says "regardless of how we got here and who was right and who was wrong, this is the hand we are dealt, and this is how I would play it" is the better person.

If you find blame games and told-you-so's constructive or interesting, fine. But I don't.
 
HolyGrail136.jpg


Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who..
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Doesn't matter. Analyzing the past for pointing fingers has never done anyone any good. Both parties do it, and I get really sick of it. The one who stands up and says "regardless of how we got here and who was right and who was wrong, this is the hand we are dealt, and this is how I would play it" is the better person.

If you find blame games and told-you-so's constructive or interesting, fine. But I don't.[/QUOTE]

Oh, but it does matter. It matters a whole hell of a lot, in fact. The first step to not repeating your mistakes is figuring out how you got it wrong in the first place. It's not even remotely hindsight, and it's most certainly not a game, "blame" or otherwise: if the country manages to avoid another costly and unjust war any time soon, it's going to be because people remember that they were lied to and led to war under false pretenses, not because "the bigger man" pretended how we wound up in Iraq is some kind of mystery. We know exactly how we got there and who's responsible, and to absolve them of culpability is nothing short of a recipe for disaster.

EDIT: And you know, even if we stop talking about this in terms of the national stage, hand-waving posts away with "the hindsight binoculars" is flat-out dishonest. Think of it this way: the bigger man is actually the one who admits his opponent got it right.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='trq']Oh, but it does matter. It matters a whole hell of a lot, in fact. The first step to not repeating your mistakes is figuring out how you got it wrong in the first place. It's not even remotely hindsight, and it's most certainly not a game, "blame" or otherwise: if the country manages to avoid another costly and unjust war any time soon, it's going to be because people remember that they were lied to and led to war under false pretenses, not because "the bigger man" pretended how we wound up in Iraq is some kind of mystery. We know exactly how we got there and who's responsible, and to absolve them of culpability is nothing short of a recipe for disaster.

EDIT: And you know, even if we stop talking about this in terms of the national stage, hand-waving posts away with "the hindsight binoculars" is flat-out dishonest. Think of it this way: the bigger man is actually the one who admits his opponent got it right.[/QUOTE]

That's all true. But constructive discussion on what happened, how we got there, and how we allowed it to happen is not often the goal or premise of pontificating on the past, especially in politics.

I'm not suggesting we forget our past, on any subject, as long as the discussion remains constructive. I think you can tell when it's constructive and when it isn't. And I think you know that it rarely is (in the media especially).
 
Political wars must have political solutions in the modern era. All the surges in the world can't fix a political problem.

I'm happy violence has gone down significantly in recent times. Lord knows the troops and Iraqis could use it. We're still at day 1 politically and I can't see how our main objective is any closer to fruition.
 
Obama imo was saying that there was some good (success) that came out of the surge that we didn't anticipate, however the true outcome that we were looking for was not a direct result of the surge, as it was the result of several factors. [if that makes any sense to anyone. ]
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']That's all true. But constructive discussion on what happened, how we got there, and how we allowed it to happen is not often the goal or premise of pontificating on the past, especially in politics.

I'm not suggesting we forget our past, on any subject, as long as the discussion remains constructive. I think you can tell when it's constructive and when it isn't. And I think you know that it rarely is (in the media especially).[/QUOTE]

Can't disagree with that. Well said.
 
This discussion reminds me a British tabloid cover I saw when I was in London in September 2007.

The picture was of President Bush shaking hands with General Petraeus (real picture), who was saying (via an inserted text balloon): "Congratulations, Sir, we are winning the defeat."

Surge, shmurge, at the end of the day, what is the fucking point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top