McCain on the Media's Infatuation with Obama

[Clyde]

Yes. You are wrong on all counts and no I am not offended. It is just a waste of time bantering with somebody who has already dismissed your opinions - for both parties.

 

There is "dismissing opinions" and there is clarifying with facts. I showed you where Obama credited the surge for its decreasing violence in Iraq. You said he didn't give any credit. Your opinion, while good for overall discussion, is of no significance in the point I'm making.

 

Read the transcript I provided and tell me that he gave no credit to the surge.

[leatherneck]

I would expect nothing less from someone with as much venom as you do towards Obama. That's not a criticism of you but, rather, simply an observation.

 

You may be right on the "what if" game but we won't know. We do know that the surge had an effect - a positive effect. However, to assign a % to it is nothing more than an academic exercise or fodder for discussion boards.

 

I think we all hear what we want to hear when Obama speaks. I've heard him twice now (Couric and Brian Williams) answer the "surge" issue. He clearly gave credit to the 30,000 troops and the positive effect it had. He said that he previously said it would be almost impossible for it to not have a positive effect on violence in Iraq. The part of the answer that upsets you and others (but not all of us) is the part where he said it was one part of the success formula. I don't think we can deny that being true.

 

Again, his point , which I've not had problems following, is that HE doesn't think it fixes the big issue and solves the #1 problem - Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Disagree with him on his thoughts but I think its disingenuous to say he doesn't give any credit to the surge.

 

I can only speak for myself and not others, but the part of his answer that really, really bothered me was the fact that even though he acknowledged that the surge did work, he didn't think he was wrong for not supporting the surge and even with today's knowledge would still oppose it. If it has made Iraq more stable, more safe and had dramatically decreased the number of U.S. military fatalities and injuries, how on God's green earth can he continue to say the surge was wrong? Think through carefully what he's saying in this part of the exchange:

 

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.

 

The way I interpret his response is that we'd have been better off spending those dollars on the things he listed than protecting the lives of our military members in Iraq. I won't say that I disagree with him on the importance of the things he listed. I totally disagree about his priorities. I do agree with him that we should put more resources in Afghanistan, but not at the expense of protecting the military in Iraq. I think he should be talking about eliminating welfare programs, pork barrel federal spending, bailouts of irresponsible homeowners and banks and other wasteful spending and take that money and put it in Afghanistan.

[leatherneck]

Today's opinion column by Kathleen Parker pretty much sums up my thoughts. Read: http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/jul/26/kathleen-parker-obama-cant-admit-a-mistake/

 

For those critics of Bush that claimed he was stubborn and close minded on matters such as pre invasion WMD intel, should Obama's seemingly apparent stubborness and refusal to just come out and admit he was wrong on the surge, cause similar concerns about Obama?

[Clyde]

I can only speak for myself and not others, but the part of his answer that really, really bothered me was the fact that even though he acknowledged that the surge did work, he didn't think he was wrong for not supporting the surge and even with today's knowledge would still oppose it. If it has made Iraq more stable, more safe and had dramatically decreased the number of U.S. military fatalities and injuries, how on God's green earth can he continue to say the surge was wrong? Think through carefully what he's saying in this part of the exchange:

 

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.

 

The way I interpret his response is that we'd have been better off spending those dollars on the things he listed than protecting the lives of our military members in Iraq. I won't say that I disagree with him on the importance of the things he listed. I totally disagree about his priorities. I do agree with him that we should put more resources in Afghanistan, but not at the expense of protecting the military in Iraq. I think he should be talking about eliminating welfare programs, pork barrel federal spending, bailouts of irresponsible homeowners and banks and other wasteful spending and take that money and put it in Afghanistan.

 

LN, fair points. I think it would require more follow-up asking exactly what you asked/assumed to get a crystal clear picture as to this thinking.

[Clyde]

Today's opinion column by Kathleen Parker pretty much sums up my thoughts. Read: http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/jul/26/kathleen-parker-obama-cant-admit-a-mistake/

 

For those critics of Bush that claimed he was stubborn and close minded on matters such as pre invasion WMD intel, should Obama's seemingly apparent stubborness and refusal to just come out and admit he was wrong on the surge, cause similar concerns about Obama?

 

I know you're waiting anxiously but I'll have to get back to you. I'm heading out the door for an out-of-town wedding.

[AcesFull]

Knowing what he knows now, and I assume that Obama is aware that the surge has been an overwhelming success, Obama would oppose the troop surge again.

 

That is an amazing position and it absolutely supports McCain's claim that Obama would rather win a campaign than win a war. Having zero military or executive experience, Obama is willing to overrule field commanders engaged in a winning strategy to put his own leftist stamp on the war.

 

[Clyde]

Today's opinion column by Kathleen Parker pretty much sums up my thoughts. Read: http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/jul/26/kathleen-parker-obama-cant-admit-a-mistake/

 

For those critics of Bush that claimed he was stubborn and close minded on matters such as pre invasion WMD intel, should Obama's seemingly apparent stubborness and refusal to just come out and admit he was wrong on the surge, cause similar concerns about Obama?

 

OK. I'm back.

 

Good article. Fair criticisms and the answer to your last question is "yes."