From the Fact Check Desk: Did Obama Say During the Debate Over the Surge That “There’s No Doubt that Additional U.S. Troops Could Temporarily Quell the Violence?”

Obama says many things. But the one of importance today is that he just denied that the surge and efforts of our troops had any bearing on the reduction of violence in Iraq. Because he is steadfastly stating now that the surge didn’t work – and refuses to acknowledge the fact that our troops have had any effect on the reduction of violence in Iraq. So the question is: what happens when we start reducing troop levels and the violence increases? What will Obama do then?

this is typical Obama, he throws some made up statements out there, hoping that no one will dare to check the accuracy of it.
Good for you Jake, if we have more reporter like you, all politicians will think twice before opening their mouth!

marylou wrote:
had any bearing on the reduction of violence in Iraq.
*************
57 dead and hundreds wounded in a suicide bombing yestarday. Please go tell those families how reduced the violence is.

Just like George Bush…in the beginning, whatever Obama says it’s gospel, and gaffs are “mistaken” and always forgiven….for the good of the country.

I thought Bush was bad about being unable to admit a mistake but this guy tops him. Bush would admit it; he just wouldn’t say it was wrong. Obama won’t admit he did it. Gonna’ be a loooong 4 years if the American voter doesn’t wake up.

Pity Obama can’t scrub statements like he scrubs his website. perhaps his memory is faulty. Obamais noted for telling the truth right?

The possibility for violence to erupt to levels seen before the surge will always be there until political peace is made, especially on the sharing of oil profits. It was one of the major priorities of the surge; to provide breathing room to the Iraqi government to come to some political resolutions.
This is why many were against the surge. We wanted to pressure the Iraqi govt. to get things done politically by setting a timetable for withdrawal. Instead we provided more troops, spent more billions of dollars and lost 1,000 more troops and they still have not made any political headway. Until they do, we will have to stay in Iraq. It’s not conditions on the ground, it’s conditions in Iraqi politics that will determine when we leave.

Visualize the Obama!!!

Obama the great leader’s position has always been that the military solution should be part of the global process, because there is no military victory, no mission accomplished here, but there should be a mechanism which brings military and political processes together to ensure the end of the war in Irak. By the way on CNN-Politics, McSame has endorsed today the 16 month time table which Obama has championed. God bless Obama, God bless America. OBAMA08.

“The key question to ask is if it is a good idea for us to meddle in similar situations in other countries in the future.”

“McCain skates by untouched – even Obama’s campaign is taking it easy on the guy.”

And it’s true that Obama gets more coverage, but a study showed that he also gets significantly more negative coverage. I would rather be in McCain’s shoes. Yes, he gets less coverage. But the coverage that he does get is almost always positive.

the first post the US has no bussiness in afganstan is way out of line. That is who attacked us on 9/11. That is were we should be and should have stayed . But noooo W thinks oil in Iraq is more important so does mcsame. Or they just wanted to make Iraq a huge battlefield too I’m not sure but Iraq was the most retarted decision I have seen made in my life.

Belle star: No business being in Afghanistan? Are you serious? That is the country most responsible for the 9/11 attacks, the war that received significant allied support, the war against an actual threat to the US. You have some awfully dark partisan blinders on to suggest with a straight face we have no business in Afghanistan. As the undisputed site where the worst attack on American soil in two generations was planned and executed from, there is no debate among the reality-based world that the US has every right to deal with Afghanistan. Although plenty of debate about the Republican approach of deciding Mr. Bin Laden was not worth going after (or the sheer incompetence of letting him run off to hide in the borderlands).

Maybe McCain should shake hands with Obama and say, “Well the surge worked, Barack and maybe now you can make good on that sixteen month promise.” Then Obama can say, “Thanks John, for helping me to keep my word.”
America will be delighted with some actual results and the troops would be delighted to be taken off the stack of election chips.
Meanwhile, back at the farm the budget deficit is sneaking in the back of the barn to set the hay on fire and scatter the stock market.

I think you’ll see the debates once these guys are actually nominated. I mean they haven’t even had the conventions yet. But I don’t think mcsame will be the nomaniee I think that stuff they cut off his face was more cancer so the repubs are going to pull a “bait and switch.” As W would say.

Obama has absolutely no chance of beating McCain. His supporters are deluded.

Here Here – For all you libs that get your news or info from the DNC Liberal talking points or MSM -
Obama gets more coverage and at leat a 5-1 positive to negative point of view
McCain gets less coverage and at a 1 to 5 positive to Negative point of view, this was release by the media watchdog.
In Iraq where we drew the line in the sand to fight the terorists instead of here, Gen Petreasus plan worked, he worked with the Sunni tribes prior to the surge troops coming in as part of his plan. So stop twisting things. Maybe if Obama did not have anti-american speech writers he would know this!!
Obama flops all over the place more then a fish out of water.
Remember one thing even Hilary stated the press is favoring Obama. The 60′s hippie throwbacks that call themselves journalists now are drooling and having tingling feelings over Obama.
Jake is a very good reporter, he puts the news out there with really no opinion stated, which is what a true journalist is suppose to do!!
Someone tell Obama that it is Country first Party never!!

Hey Joe – wake up Violence is drastically down, even Obama admits it!!
It seems to be safer in Baghdad then any city here ran by a Democrat!!

did any one notice the sucide bombs yesterday. So violence is back up

Based on the increase of violence in Iraq since the surge, the sobering reality, though some refuse to face or admit it, is that although the surge did help to lower the violence briefly, it has proven not to have had any long-term effect, which is exactly as Obama (in his excellent judgment) had asserted before and after the surge. Why are so many Americans angry about that? Have we not had enough fighting of a war we had no business engaging in, in the first place? Are we that immuned and thirsty for fighting. We were to be in Iraq only to assist them in getting their country back in control, not occupy. We (Bush) said we would leave whenever they wanted us to, but instead of being true to our word, we do as we always have done, leave when we get ready, and that my friends is the attitude we as Americans must change. Contrary to popular belief, the world is not our oyster, but rather we are sharers of it and we need to start acting like it by respecting the right of other countries’ to govern as they choose and show by how we govern ourselves what living in a free democracy really means, instead of trying to impose our ideal of it on them. If we’re asked for help and we feel it is the right thing to do, then by all means we should if we can, but when we are asked to stand down, we should not take this condescending and obstenant attitude towards the country we’ve helped, as if we are superior. Our economy hinges the large indeptedness we have to many such countries, as our deficit continues to grow. Yet we stomp around the world throwing our weight around with countries like Korea and Iran, when all they want is to be treated respectfully rather than dictated to. We are going to get nowhere but into a war if don’t stop telling other countries what to do. We must approach our disapproval of other countries behavior with a spirit of appealing for the cooperation of other countries and communicating that disapproval in mass, because we have no power to be flexing on our own and think we won’t be challenged. Let a thinking man take the reigns like Obama. Do you notice how he is always consulting with knowledgeable ones and thoughtful in his responses to questions. However, everytime you see McCain, he’s shooting from the hip and alone. He seems to have no idea what teamwork means and acts as if he can do what needs to be done as President by himself, and that to me is a very dangerous attitude to have. I fear what he would do to our country as President. With Obama, I believe we have a chance of being what we ought to be to ourselves and our neighbors, great.

Oh the look on Obama’s face when someone has the guts to ask him a tough question.
He is used to his ##### in the crowd booing the questions–all an attempt to make Obama look like a victim.
Obama’s downfall will be his pride and thirst for power–it will do him in as it did Bush. If elected I pray Obama won’t damage the country even more than Bush.

Obama lies with EASE. That is the creepiest thing about Obama. And the media overlook it and his supporters don’t notice because they are blinded by his halo or forgive him.
It is DISGUSTING.
Obama changes his views depending on who is listening.
Bush wasn’t this stupid and divisive before he became president.

ABC please report on how McCain is endorsing Obama`s 16 month withdrawal plan. You are so biased. All you do is report McCain`s attack against Obama. This is disgusting.

obama lied.
it’s his speciality
Nafta Fisa Abortion
he’s lied about his votes on all of them

Obama may not have publicly admitted it, but it is clear that he and others who opposed the surge did realize that such a huge infusion of U.S., troop would bring at least temporary stability. It’s strictly common sense. And if he didn’t understand that, then he’s in trouble…

alvin — you MUST be kidding, right? the media is SOOOO biased for Obama, that it is once in a long while that they mention the ugly truth about Obama! You supporters are so sensitive that even one slight negative comment about him, and the sky is about to fall down and everyone is against him and “disgusting”! First of all, McCain did not “endorse” Obama’s 16 month timetable, McCain has ALWAYS said it is not wise to have a time table, it should always depend on the situation on the ground. Petraus also thinks Obama’s timetable is impossible and dangerous. When Obama says “As I always said”, that means he is about to tell a lie, which is just about all the time.

doublestandard: “the media is SOOOO biased for Obama, that it is once in a long while that they mention the ugly truth about Obama!”
Do you have any *facts* to back up that statement? See my previous post for a citation that found an astonishingly 72% of the opinions expressed on the big three about Obama were negative, while only 57% of comments about McCain were negative. Oddly, the biased media is not widely reporting this study (maybe they’re so biased they ignore things for a conservative-leaning source by habit?).
I’m interested to hear what facts you are basing your opinion on.

Obama has absolutely no chance of beating McCain. His supporters are deluded.
Posted by: Josh Batterson | Jul 29, 2008 11:01:47 AM
=========================================
No . Weren`t people like you saying the same thing when Obama was running against hillary?
I can tell one thing. This election will be a close one. After 8 years of America sinking to its lowest under experienced people like Bush and Cheney people will vote with their brains. Get over it. Right now Obama is winning consistently in the polls except for today.
Obama will win.

How can Obama ever be wrong? He has good judgment to take positions on both outcomes of the surge.

“Yet we stomp around the world throwing our weight around with countries like Korea and Iran, when all they want is to be treated respectfully rather than dictated to.”
That’s a dangerously simplistic view of the world.

geevil: “Naive Obama supporter – We were not attacked by Afghanistan. radical Islamic terrorists were resonsible… cuddled by then goverments located in countries like … Afghanistan.”
Afghanistan was harboring established, known infrastructure for the group that attacked us. And they refused to take action against it even after the attack. I don’t know what kum-bay-ah cloud you live on, but that makes the Taliban government of Afghanistan as much the attacker as the radicals it harbored and chose to continue to shelter after 9/11.
How naive are you to think that the Taliban government of Afghanistan does not bear responsibility for the attacks coordinated from it’s territory? Unbelievable.

The Taliban doe not control Afghanistan anymore. or haven’t Obama supporters been paying attention.

“Afghanistan was harboring established, known infrastructure for the group that attacked us.”

“Right now Obama is winning consistently in the polls except for today.”
ROFLAO this has to be the funniest post of the day!! Obama is on a downward spiral all because of his photo-op trip. Here’s what the average voter (who may not have been paying attention until now) got out of that little trip.
Obama doesn’t care what anyone tells him on Iraq; he’s getting out.
Lest we think the U.S. is getting out of a war though, it’s on to more troops is Afghanistan and into Pakistan.
He disses our wounded troops because he can’t get his media photo-ops out of it.
Then he lies and blames the Pentagon for not going.
He gives a vapid speech before the youth of Berlin, re-writing history and dissing America.
His “people of the world” is either goofy or scary, depending on your outlook.
Plus it confirms the suspicion that he’s running for King of the World rather than POTUS.
He hobnobs with the heads of other countries in order to look presidential, when in fact, he just looks like a little kid.
He thinks the public is going to believe that a one week whirlwind tour is the equivalent of foreign policy experience.
The more people see of Obama, the less they like him. And they’re probably getting really tired of the condescending way Obama has of speaking. It’s obvious he looks down on the average American.

Thank you again Jake for being the only journalist out there who is actually grappling with the facts. Obama has controlled the narrative (many times, disingenuously) because and has been allowed to do so unchecked by a complicit media. Please keep up the good work.
I refer your readers to the piece in Slate written by Christopher Hitchens. It provides a great example of how the media – including heavyweights like Tim Russert – have allowed Obama to perpetrate his fairy tale positions on Iraq and the surge. Not only did they do nothing to press the issue (as they are constitutionally mandated to do) — but they allowed Obama to deflect legitimate criticism by using the race card. Everyone knew that Bill Clinton was telling the truth. Everyone knew about the CNN memo. Nobody wanted to talk about the truth then, when it mattered.
Now that Obama’s positions have been made more clear (he is no longer engaged in intentional ambiguity [a form of deceit, by the way]), perhaps it is time for a retrospective piece on the fairy tale issue. I am sure President Clinton would appreciate the opportunity to have his name cleared. Since you are the only one out there who seems to give a damn about the facts, maybe you could resurrect the issue.

As a researcher and journalist, I’ve learned that the Internet (blogging etc.) has further polarized America. Instead of making us more tolerant, we have more data that tells us how right our side is. News comes at us so fast and raw and it takes an open and diligent mind to put it together.
Neither Obama, Bush, or McCain are as bad — or as good — as their supporters or critics claim – they are humans beings just like you and me. Yes, maybe they like power…but just maybe they also like to serve.
I like Obama because I believe in the ideals he proposes in his “Audacity of Hope” book. I also like him, because I think he uses the games that divide us less than Bush did and McCain is now adopting.
I don’t expect this post to change our (as in the voters) political discourse for the better (though it needs changing), but I hope that we takes news as it is meant to be used — for information, not ammunition. Leave the sniping to the politicians.

July 28, 2008
Categories: McCain
Former Ramstein medical chief denounces McCain
VoteVets, the pro-Democrat group of retired military personnel, counters McCain’s Black Hawk down statement with some outrage from Col. Katherine Scheirman (Ret.), the retired Chief of Medical Operations for United States Air Force in Europe Headquarters at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany.
Also, it’s notable that Obama’s camp, quick to respond to most every charge and ever-conscious of not repeating the mistakes of Kerry, has yet to go on the air with a spot pushing back against McCain’s charge on the troop visit. Apparently, they won’t unless McCain puts real money behind his spot and goes beyond just gaming it for earned media.

“Senator Obama should be thanked for putting our military above politics.”

Thank you, Jake, for pointing out what should have been obvious for so long, if the media was paying attention. Obama’s position on the surge is so ridiculous that even Katie Couric found it illogical. But who needs facts and logic when we have Hope and Change?
Judgment to Lead, Obama style: Close eyes, insert fingers in ears, and repeat: I am always right!
Those who have eyes to see and ears to hear will NOT vote for Obama! But how long will the truth remain hidden?

Poor Obama can not remember ANYTHING!The media forgives him EVERYTHING!

Anybody who’s wondering about The CHANGEling’s intention to escalate in A’stan might want to check out Marjorie Cohen’s “End the Occupation of Iraq — and Afghanistan”, in commondreams today.

Obama is more like George Bush than anyone will admit. He did drugs in college, Bush drank. He is now a health nut; Bush is known to get up early and jog, etc. Bush refuses to admit when he is wrong, same for Obama. They both keep a tight rein on those around them and are very controlling. The reason Obama has not gone after McCain is because he has the MSM to do it for him. His lack of respect for life is a huge flaw. That fact that he refuses to admit he is wrong about things, his upbringing surrounded by radicals and his very poor political experience record makes him a scary choice for President.

“I know that there’s that little snippet that you ran,”

The CNN memo refers to a memo that was generated by the Obama campaign during the South Carolina primary wherein the campaign detailed examples/talking points of how the Clintons (both of them) engaged in racist and race-baiting tactics over the course of several years – including during the Clinton administration. Of course, the content was untrue. More fundamentally, the fact that the campaign generated and distributed such a memo unequivocally undercut Obama’s then universally accepted meme that he, the transcendent one, was not using race to divide and conquer. That sort of divisiveness, as we all recall, was part of the “old politics” that Obama ostensibly rejected to propel him to victory. It was extremely offensive on the merits as well – given President Clinton’s longstanding and unquestionable commitment to racial equality (he appointed more African-Americans in his administration than any other in history). This race memo went hand-in-hand with the Obama campaign’s distortion of Clinton’s “fairy tale” comment, Hillary’s LBJ comment, and Bill’s explanation of why he and Hillary both were campaigning in South Carolina (an explanation that Jesse Jackson repeatedly defended, but the media ignored). Bill did not in fact attribute Obama’s South Carolina’s victory to race, notwithstanding how that story was portrayed. See Prof. Sean Wilentz for reasoned analysis on this point.
The point is that Obama not only distorted the facts to create a race-based wedge, but he affirmatively engaged in race-baiting tactics himself, as evidenced most obviously, by the CNN memo. Tim Russert had the memo in hand during the South Carolina primary debate. He had it within his power to expose the facts right then and there and, in so doing, possibly change the trajectory of the primary (or, at least, to invite a true and candid conversation about the race issue). He questioned Obama generally about the memo but refused to disclose the content or query him vigorously about its source and veracity. Had Russert done his job I believe that many people would not believe what they believe today — that the Clintons are the ones who engaged in race baiting tactics and that Obama did not. I believe that the South Carolina primary was a turning point for Hillary, and that she lost in large part due to the distortion of the race issue. Thus, the memo is just one more example of how the media complicity allowed Obama to create and control a false narrative and contributed to Hillary’s demise.
Add to this the media’s failure to call out Jesse Jackson Jr. when he promised to retaliate against African-Americans who stood in Obama’s way to the Whitehouse or his stated incredulity over Hillary’s New Hampshire crocodile tears (I am sure she never shed a tear over the victims of Hurricane Katrina, he said) — and it is easy to understand how public perception was influenced. The media control our perceptions by not only what they say — but in what the fail to say, or uncover. Obama capitalized on that full stop, and there was a heavy price to pay.
It is too late for Hillary. But it is not too late to get the historical facts right. The Dem Party is divided in many ways now — but contrary to Obama’s characterization, it is not just a bunch of angry old feminist women. The profound divisions exist and persist because many people observed these tactics and the concomitant consequences as they played out in real time. They saw the overt manipulation, deception and media complicity and (without a mitigating media voice) felt powerless to defend on the merits. These objections go to the core of fairness and democracy — and that is why they are not going away.

You quote Obama:
“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.”
This ignores the fact that for much of “the surge” violence WAS up, by a large margin. See the folks at democracyarsenal on the topic:
“The surge DID increase violence in Iraq. Yes the last eight months violence is down – but the eight months before that were the most violent since the war began… Violence has decreased since – and while the troop increase and the change in strategy has had an important impact, other factors (factors not a part of the original of the surge plan) explain the decline in violence much more effectively.”

Mack: Wait, did you seriously mean, “(the DMCA has been) criticized for advancing a notion of objectivity thought to be ideologically consistent with the values of liberal democracy” as a real insult? It was so over the top ridiculous I thought you were being snarky towards anyone playing attack-the-messenger against the CMPA. I mean, to claim that someone called the FoxNews lov’in, PBS diss’in CMPA “Liberal” would make them look like a blatant liar without pretty firm backup.

“Do you think that means people are finally wising up to the clay feet of the Messiah?”

Interesting informative comments today!
Less shrill, better documented, and thought provoking. Having a quality blog topic and post helps too!
Since words mean something as do actions, and the timing and context are important, the illumination of what the Senator said as opposed to what he says he said continues to expose a charade. What does he have to say about this?

@@@@@Truth Matters | Jul 29, 2008 12:52:22 PM@@@@@
…. JUST NOT TO YOU…..
You would be well served to read the posts of Geevill and Fact Check and Belle Starr… as well as a variety of news sources…. for a less limited political viewpoint……

I wonder what would happen if the all the countries that America owes money to, woke up one morning and decided to stop extending our default dates on our loans? That would amount to what’s known in the housing market a what? “foreclosure” wouldn’t it? I wonder where we’d go outsted out of our own country by the countries we’re stroding all over flexing muscle we don’t have. I think we need to tone it down a bit, and try to get along with our lenders better so we can get refinancing, cause America has long been sold. We need to take America back and we’re not going to do by fighting and being at odds with every country we owe money to. I guaranty you that.

Obama was clearly, definitively and spectacularly wrong–now he may yet be proven correct in the fullness of time; but again, so my President Bush.
Does it not concern any Obama supporter that Obama cannot simply say: boy did I get that wrong! Hell, there isnt even an advisor he can defenestrate on this one. As of today, he simply got it wrong.

Whenever anybody tries to pin Obama down to a position, he evades, equivocates, and misrepresents prior statements. For the most part his words are nonsensical generalities – these often accentuated by audience participation. He travels abroad, meets with foreign dignitaries, CEOs, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Chairman of the Fed as if he is already President. The man is a fop, a dandy, and a fool! Fortunately, right now we don’t have any foreign hostages whose release he can volunteer to mediate.

Hey, when it comes to Democratic politicians lying, remember: Everybody does it! Just like Clinton.
As for Landstuhl – perhaps it would have been awkward for Senator Obama to meet troops who have lost eyes, arms, legs buddies … for a “distraction and a mistake.”
Why do the Dems nominate these arrogant empty suits?

I’ve never seen such a blatant liar then Obama.
Never.
BO = BS

I believe that O’bama should be forthright about his statements, but most of these comments are simply ignorant. Any open minded and fair person would have no problem agreeing that McCain has flip-flopped on far more issues and has flat out lied on far more occasions. His judgment has been at best horrible. He bumbled us into an unnecessary war. This surge that the right wing is so proud has not been the success McCain or you claim. I don’t care if all of the violence disappears in Iraq. Those soldiers should have been in Afghanistan going after the people who brag about having attacked us and who have threatened to do it again. How many soldiers have had to die needlessly in Iraq and Afghanistan because of an ill-advised strategy. It is funny how McCain was still spewing that we might have to stay in Iraq for 100 years until O’bama went to Iraq and all of a sudden we had won the war. Nothing changed overnight but Iraq’s prime minister agreeing with O’bama. Now McCain is even talking timetable for withdraw and is agreeing with O’bama that we need to send more troops to Afghanistan. Shoot the President has even sent a diplomat to talk directly with Iran after having mocked O’bama for even suggesting it. The President also sent in 4 precision strikes into Pakistan once again after mocking O’bama for suggesting it. There is only one candidate with the judgment and knowledge to be president and that is O’bama. Shoot maybe O’bama can explain the difference between Shiite and Sunni and give geography lessons concerning borders and explain to McCain that Czechoslovakia no longer exists.

NickinVirginia, not only does Obama lie, but then he acts like it was the rest of us that were simply too ignorant to understand what he was purportedly saying ala “Let me explain this one more time…”

What happened to a chance for the Iraqi government to regroup? And just because people with an agenda say its working, a city thats chopped into a rat maze, and missing several million people driven out of the country, does not paint a picture of a city of victory. Remember there were more people killed in Iraq last month than in the month preceding the surge. Just because they weren’t all white doesn’t mean they don’t count.

First election in a long time (ever?) where at least some of the media is really attempting to be “fair and balanced” (no need to reject a good slogan).

desert dawg asks:
“Is there something I’m missing? I’m all for calling Obama for his mis-statements, but I just don’t see it here. He said he made a statement in the ‘debate’ over the surge to the effect that it might help somewhat, and he did.”
Well, yes, there is something you’re missing. It is just this: Obama predicted that the surge would prove an abject failure, and it’s now clear that he was completely wrong in his analysis. But somehow neither Obama nor his adoring fans can accept that inconvenient truth.
Obama’s resoundingly bad call on the surge certainly calls his presidential qualifications into question. But even more alarming than his bad judgment is the barefaced audacity of his refusal to admit that he was wrong. Even for a contemporary American politician, his shamelessness is breathtaking.

thank you for actually reporting facts and not back and forth quotes between the campaigns.
obama has continually cited his 2002 speech as proof that he has the judgment to lead. now that he actually has casted a vote and can be held accountable, he refused to acknowledge his mistake. he thought the violence would double and it didn’t. mccain was right and obama was wrong.
however, obama is going to be a hypocrite – making a a presidential candidate admit a vote was a mistake only applies to hillary clinton.

Keith.
Even Obama has said that he (Obama) did not expect the the political factors to work – THEY HAVE!! Actually, compared to the US congress – IRAQ IS WAY DOWN THE ROAD! OBAMA originally had said the the SURGE WOULD NEVER WORK – IT HAS. Then he and others implied that MAYBE the suge has worked, but the political factors have not. NOW he admits that the political factors have worked. As MANITU says, no wonder most US voters MUCH prefer McCain over Obama re. foreign policy and national defense.

USA/GALLUP (7/28) POLL AMONG LIKELY VOTERS: MCCAIN 49%, OBAMA 45%.

Obama has actually LOST GROUND TO MCCAIN SINCE HIS TRIP ABROAD – IS IT POSSIBELE THE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE WAKING UP??

When our soldiers are fighting and dying in harm’s way, I want a leader with the judgement to make things right. While I agree with Obama on many social issues, he does not seem to know what he’s talking about (or he is too beholden to the anti-war left) when it comes to military issues. This is *the* issue for me when I pull that voting lever.

David.
When you say – get out of Iraq, what exactly do you mean? Iraq is actually quickly becoming a non-issue. (17% US voters still consider it an issue). The question now is; how do we address the Iran/Israeli issue with respect to our continued presence in Iraq? Even Obama has acknowledged that we will need to keep some forces there – BECAUSE OF IRAN.

Obama’s comments on Iraq and the surge alone demonstrate a judgment so poor he should automatically be disqualified from the race. I can think of no other recent candidate for any office who has been so spectacularly wrong for so long on THE major issue of the day. His Iraq policy is so incoherent it is impossible to keep up with his daily changes to it.

No matter how anyone feels about Iraq. One thing certain. Iraq war has caused the bad guys, WHO BY THE WAY, WANT US DEAD, to put most of their resources INTO IRAQ AND NOT HERE!!! NO attacks on US soil since 911. Of course, much credit must be given to the combined intel agencies of Great Britain, France, US and Israel. Bottom line is our guys over there HAVE kept us safe over here. Believe it or not…. that is the case.

This article correctly points out that at the time of the debate over the vote on the surge, Obama made no statement recognizing even limited surge success. That shows Obama is playing very low politics in matters of war/peace and life/death, which reveals his low character.
His vote against the surge itself also reveals he did not understand the dynamics of the Iraq war.
What is most scary though, what makes him absolutely unfit for office, and what no one is covering is that in those debates Obama also claimed the war was already lost and the only option was to bring the troops home “immediately.”
This fact is a kind of smoking gun. It shows his new claim that he partially supported the surge (or at least recognized it could have some positive impacts) is an outright lie. It also shows he never understood or was willing to sell out US interest’s in the middle east for his own short-term political gain. As long as he could place the blame for the loss on GW Bush/Repubs he was very willing to accept failure in the middle east. Now that that’s not possible, it’s, ‘oh I only wanted to win in Afghanistan’. This shift is an attempt to change the subject and make it look like he has any clue about the importance of our winning in the middle east. I only hope others recognize how he is willing to undermine America to further his own political goals. It may take a bit of a miracle at this point, but his defeat would be a true victory for the US, particularly in the war on terror.

I see no evidence to suggest that Mr. Obama made any such statements during the surge debate. Mr. Tapper seems to have drawn the appropriate conclusion. Mr. Obama has indeed lied. It doesn’t make it true just because you say it is true. There must be evidence of its truthfulness.
We can only guess at Mr. Obama’s reasoning since we cannot get inside the man’s mind. We can, however, draw our own individual conclusions as to the question: “Is Mr. Obama fit to be our Commander-in-Chief.?”
I, for one, am eagerly anticipating the four debates in September and October. I encourage everyone who has posted here to watch the debates and decide for yourself.

Can we at least keep our eye on the ball here. Can it be seriously argued that Obama’s statements on the surge is even a legitimate issue? The invasion of Iraq is an unqualified failure as a policy. The right and particularly McCain claims that anyone who sees this as obvious is willing to accept defeat. This is the worst type of emotional and silly argument. Our troops fought and won handily a war to take down a government. Now if we leave, because we should not be in the middle of a civil war, we are defeated? This is simply false.
What is true is that under the best of circumstances, the policy is, as I have said, an unqualified failure. We have spent a trillion dollars or more which could have solved health care in this country or perhaps given us some fiscal responsibility. For our investment we have empowered Iraq’s natural ally Iran. Thanks to this policy whole heartedly supported by McCain we now have two choices – a nuclear Iran or war with Iran. There is also a matter of a few hundred thousand people dead or maimed in this whole equation including our precious troops which McCain has consistently voted against like in his failure to support Sen. Webb’s GI bill. For this McCain should be ashamed of himself.
In light of all of this the discussion about whether a temporary surge has improved the situation is like asking Mrs. Lincoln how the play was.
Isn’t the real issue how it is that McCain can claim superiority on foreign policy when he lacked the insight to be against this fool hearty war? Obama was against the entire thing from the start.
Not only that, McCain, knowing the unmitigated disaster the entire notion of the war was, still maintains that the war was the correct decision. This tells me that he either lacks good judgment, is a war monger or is willing to use war as an instrument of policy far more frequently than this country can afford. It is of no moment which of these is true I do not want him as President.

Peter.
Anthrax? Yeah, but pretty thin….

Peter.
How about MA in Ed and then 23 years of teaching elementary and high school? Remember, that the educated man is aware of the possible and probable consequences of his acts and non acts and responds accordingly. Kindasorta makes me wonder about the quality of Obama’s education.

Manitu,
Reread my comment. I said that this is one possibility. One of the three is true and any one of them disqualifies him from the presidency.

The fact of the matter is McCain knowing what he knows today (no weapons of mass destruction) would invade Iraq all over again. To me that is alot bigger deal than Obama admiting the surge worked. McCain said on This Week. The guy is a warmonger. He would still have more than 4 thousand troops die and another 30 thousand injured before he admits the war was wrong. That is a way bigger issue than the surge. If McCain is elected we will be at war with Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan.

“The fact of the matter is McCain knowing what he knows today (no weapons of mass destruction) would invade Iraq all over again.” – wlw100
Did McCain ever say this? DO NOT state something as fact unless you have proof. We DO NOT know that at all! Unless you have proof, then YOU are just a liar!

A year ago, I agreed with Obama on the surge 100%. I hoped the surge would work but frankly believed it couldn’t.
I definately agree that simply reducing the violence temporarily was not the purpose of the surge – the surge was to provide a safe environment for political progress to be made. Failure to achieve that political progress would have to be defined as a failure.
However, even I, a staunch war critic, one who was in the tiny minority against the war from the very begining and against all of Bush’s disasterous tactics (sending in too few troups, the notion that we could do it on the cheap, de-bathification, etc) – even I have to acknowledge that the Iraqi government is on track or ahead of schedule on 15 of 18 political solutions according to recent congressional report – the very solutions the surge was to make happen.
Now that isn’t 100%, but as late as last fall Iraq had made almost no progress on any of the 18 areas of political turmoil. This is why we all argued it wasn’t working.
However, since violence has been quelled, the Iraqi’s are making a lot of very real progress on a wide array of political sticking points – again, they are now on schedule or ahead of schedule on 15 of 18 subjects. The Iraqi’s have almost achieved that which we, the Democrats, said was the goal of the surge a year ago.
By the very same logic we used to say the surge was a failure last fall, I now have to acknowledge that it is working.
I was wrong. But at least I am man enough to admit it.
You can’t have true leadership if you are not willing to acknowledge reality whenever it doesn’t happen to be politically expedient, particularly in matters of national security. That Obama will play politics with such a critical matter of state is outrageous. That his judgement was wrong (as was mine) on the matter – the single most important national security matter to have been discussed since Obama’s run for President – is very relevant. I too have thought that McCain is too old. But I’ll take an old, but competent person who knows how to win a war over an incompetent (brilliant, charming, likeable and very articulate when in front of a teleprompter, but lacking judgement because he has no experience) anyday.
This is the Presidency of the United States of America we are talking about here, folks, not American Idol.

And are you doing/have you done a “fact check” on McCain’s statements made in support of Invading Iraq? Was he wrong about how long it would take, how easy it would be, etc.? Isn’t it more important to be right on the big strategic issues?

Call me a stickler for technicalities, but instead of injecting my politics into this particular question of whether he was mistaken or lied about his statements during debate over the surge, I would like to look at what Obama actually said, without reading more into his words than can be proven. A simple definition of the word you left out of your quote in the following sentence makes a huge difference in the reality of what Obama said.
“So the accuracy of this claim depends on when you consider the ‘debate’ over the surge to have taken place.”
The word you left out was “this”. Obama said “this debate” not “the debate”, “that debate”, “the official senate debate”. Why does this matter? Well “this” is a pronoun or adjective that denotes something that is present or near in place or time. I personally don’t call the February before last near in place or time, so I can only presume that Obama referred to the greater debate that reaches to the present time. So in truth he could have said “troops could temporarily quell the violence” the day before he made the statement that he made on meet the press and still not be lying.

this is incredible!!!
The Anbar awakening and the cease fire are ALSO part of the reduction of the violence there…But why people here don’t want to acknowledge that the Iraqis ALSO have a big part, a big responsability in that process…
It’s ALL about the US !!!!…Of course the US troops are making a tremendous work(not to mention all soldiers who died or got injured there)
Even McCAIN told Stephanopoulos on ABC that the Americans are seen as “liberators”…why do very few people mention the Iraqis’ part ?
Some people are saying that Obama is a liar, are accusing him of flip flopping all the time
You better serious guyz ‘because If you choose your next president on that criteria,especially MC CAIN…i mean…people can’t be that blind…mouhahahahahahaha !!!!!!!!!!!!

Jake,
Read Obama’s statement carefully:
“Unless we say that we’re going to occupy Iraq indefinitely, we’re gonna continue to see problems.”
Well this is exactly what McCain said. McCain rightly saw that it was critically important that you demonstrate to your enemy that you have an unwavering commitment to your cause and that you will not quit.
Here Obama clearly articulates, albeit subconsciously, the merit of McCain’s statements (and actions). If Obama really believed what he is saying here, why did he not say it himself? Because Obama’s record and campaign statements are clear. On this issue, as on every issue, Obama puts his own personal ambition, his desire to be President, ahead of the welfare of our country! Obama was willing to see the US lose in Iraq, he has built a record and a campaign around this position, and if it happened he would likely be our next President. Imagine though what would happen to oil prices and to our economy if we left Iraq to civil war and terrorists.
If the press would begin to take a serious look at Obama’s statements, his record and campaign, they will see that this is the central theme of his campaign….look for others failures, highlight them and tell the country that you intend to “change” the situation. Obama’s position on the war in Iraq highlights the risk of supporting “change” without articulating clear policies that will guide this change.
Obama is running for President of the United States as an empty vessel, afraid to vote or take a stand on controversial issues, because it may cost him the Presidency. In the campaign he is quickly developing a reputation for double speak and has a clear legislative record of voting “present” whenever the issue is too controversial. I have an abiding faith that this country will NEVER elect a President like this.
McCain has a solid record of addressing tough issues head-on and has proven that he has the political and personal fortitude to stick with an issue until it is resolved. On the tough issues of the day, the deficit, social security, campaign finance reform and the war McCain has a record of strong bipartisan leadership. McCain has proven that he puts the welfare of this country ahead of his own political an personal well being. This is truly “change we can believe in.”

TBrown, I read the transcript and your point about “this debate” could indeed be true (which Mr. Tapper also points out) although the context of the conversation infers they were speaking about the debate back in ’07. Still, Obama appears to shape-shift as he sees progress being made during the surge so that he can be on the winning side of the issue. If it went sour, he would have not had made the shift. This makes him a typical politician, not standing on principle – which he claims not to be (a typical politician, that is). Simply put, I don’t trust him any more than I trust any other politician. He’s already talking about being in office for two terms. They never quit. It’s all about being in power. It has nothing to do with helping you or me. The incumbent party always wants to stay the course and the other party always says we need change. You will see if Obama wins the election, all his supporters will be thrown under the bus – until 2011. Then the promises will start all over again.

We can thank Obama and the Democrats for the Anbar Awakening
In fact, it was the prospect of an early U.S. withdrawal, not the surge, that prompted the Sunni insurgents to change sides, according to the American officers who worked with their leaders. A fascinating article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs by Georgetown professor Colin Kahl and retired Gen. William Odom quotes Marine Maj. Gen. John Allen, who ran the tribal engagement operations in Anbar during 2007, saying that the Democratic sweep in the 2006 midterm elections and the increasing demand for withdrawal by the American public “did not go unnoticed” among the province’s Sunni sheiks.
“They talked about it all the time.” Allen also told Kahl that the Marines exploited those concerns by telling the sheiks: “We are leaving … We don’t know when we are leaving, but we don’t have much time, so you [the Anbaris] better get after this.” Kahl and Odom write that “the risk that U.S. forces would leave pushed the Sunnis to cut a deal to protect their interests while they still could.”
They also quote Maj. Niel Smith, the operations officer at the U.S. Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Center, and Col. Sean MacFarland, commander of U.S. forces in Ramadi during that crucial period, who wrote a long article on the Anbar awakening in the journal Military Review. “A growing concern that the U.S. would leave Iraq and leave the Sunnis defenseless against Al-Qaeda and Iranian-supported militias,” they recalled, “made these younger [tribal] leaders [who led the awakening] open to our overtures.”