Now The Surge Is Succeeding?

Reality has overtaken Obama at long last:

The troop surge in Iraq has been more successful than anyone could have imagined, Barack Obama conceded Thursday in his first-ever interview on FOX News’ “The O’Reilly Factor.”

As recently as July, the Democratic presidential candidate declined to rate the surge a success, but said it had helped reduce violence in the country. On Thursday, Obama acknowledged the 2007 increase in U.S. troops has benefited the Iraqi people.

“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.”

Here is an old post with links to the vast Obamafuscations last July when Obama struggled to pretend that (a) the surge was not successful and (b) he had always said the surge would succeed as it had.  John Dickerson raised an excellent question about Obama's judgment:

If Obama was wrong about the tactical gains that would be made by the new strategy and wrong about how the Iraqi political leaders would react, can his larger theory about how Iraqis will respond to a troop pullout remain intact? Perhaps, but he has the burden of explanation.

Right - Obama will be in a big hurry to tackle that hypothetical "what if?" puzzle - how might Iraq have developed if his "surrender now" policy had been adopted in the winter of 2007?  Who can tell?  But the National Intelligence Estimate of Jan 2007 said this:

Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation.

OK, so Obama opposed a surge that succeeded and advocated a policy that the NIE said at the time would lead to a disaster in Iraq.  Troubling - maybe he can commiserate with a Times pundit.

As to whether anyone could have predicted that the surge would be effective - well, Bush did introduce it this way in his January 2007 speech:

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons:  There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents.  And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.  Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does.  They also report that this plan can work.

...

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not.  Well, here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents, but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned.  This time, we'll have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods -- and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

I can believe that none of the people Obama speaks with thought the Surge could succeed.  But Bush, McCain and Petraeus expected success.

PILING ON:  Jeff Goldstein:

I simply must point out that this line, “I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” is not really a political winner I suspect, especially given that the man he’s running against believed in the surge (as did those who planned it). Had they not, the charge Obama is making here is that the military was simply throwing away American lives on a strategy that they didn’t really think would work — and that they really just kinda lucked into success.

And shorter Dale Franks: Obama would like us to believe that history is bunk.  Or at least, this history.

Comments

[Antimedia]

You find what you're looking for. Thus liberals find defeat where others find success, and liberals find peace and love where others find only tyranny and misery.

[Elliott]

“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.”

McCain's campaign will hit him hard for this. Maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of the campaign.

[Sue]

The best part about it? All of the headlines are saying Obama says surge succeeded, or words similar to that. ::grin:: His base will go balistic!

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

It doesn't matter what Obama says. John McCain told his wife to go up to the balloon Sarah Palin inflated, stick a pin in it, and he'd come along and strike a match and blow it sky high.

What an imbecile. I've never seen anything more self-destructive by any politician. EVER. The 1964 Phillies weren't this embarrassing.

[RichatUF]

I can believe that none of the people Obama speaks with thought the Surge could succeed.

But Obama has his secret weapon to deal with Iraq. Biden, a guy that is less popular across Iraq than al-Sadr.

[Sue]

Play it again, Elliott...

[Elliott]

But Bush, McCain and Petraeus expected success.

And they would have been irresponsible to advocate/implement it if they hadn't.

[Sue]

The 1964 Phillies weren't this embarrassing.

Well, keep it up and you might be able to compete for the title.

[Rick Ballard]

Does Obama have a flare for the bleeding obvious or what?

Elliott,

Like Sue said - play it again. McCain should take the tack that Megan McCardle outlined - Obama is much more thoughtful and reflective than is McCain. He's vastly deeper than McCain could ever hope to be. He's so damn intellectual that he can cling to belief in any absurdity that his fantastic intellectual prowess can rationalize far beyond the time when someone with a lesser intellect would simply note that it was wrong and give it up.

Obama's gonna need tourniquets for this, not bandages. He's heading into Black Knight territory quite quickly.

[Sue]

http://www.foundingbloggers.com/wordpress/>What we aren't seeing on tv or at least I'm not.

[Elliott]

Yes, Rick, the insights of the One can only be truly comprehended by his acolytes, whose blessed dispensation it is to disseminate same across the land.

In other words, he'll always have parrots.

[Jim Rhoads aka Vnjagvet]

BHO's multi-million dollar McSame media buy is now obsolete and mouldering in the grave.

Bush has been thrown under the bus, but I suspect he doesn't mind. He will gladly wait until November 5 to get his appreciation from his party.

[JB]

So let's see...

Obama's big selling points -

1) Judgment - Obama wrong on the surge, McCain right.

2) Change - Obama virtually nonexistent record of change, Palin took on her own party.

Shrug...hey, look, my kids are as cute as the Palins'! C'mon, guys!

[bgates]

Elliott, you seem pretty sure we're going to end up in the Casa Blanca. I just hope we won't have to endure too much of Lindsey Graham, Mel Martinez, and the rest of the usual suspects.

[PD]

"Shrug...hey, look, my kids are as cute as the Palins'!"

Nah. The *real* genius of McCain's pick of Palin is that he gets Piper, who outcutes the Obama girls.

[Elliott]

Whichever ticket wins we'll be subjected to plenty of Renault-able energy nonsense.

[Neo]

Does Obama have a flare for the bleeding obvious or what?

It's part of his campaign mantra ...

Banality for the Common Man

[Neo]

1) Judgment - Obama wrong on the surge, McCain right.

Let's keep this kind of stuff above his pay grade.

[JB]

Piper isn't just cute, she's a character.

Did you see how pissed she was tonight? She wanted a piece of some those Code Pinkos, I bet.

[Elroy Jetson]

Obama's quote that the surge succeeded in ways noone anticipated belittles our own military. Did the troops operate in the field believe they were going to fail?
I think those brave men and women who did mulitple tours knew what worked and what did not. It took a brilliant General Petraeus and the rest to implement his plans to right the ship and lead us to the brink of victory. God Bless the men and women serving our great country.
And God bless Obama, the last person in America to realize that we are winning! This election is all about judgement, right?

[M. Simon]

jim,

I was just going to say the same thing. So let me say it again:

McSame is off the table.

It was a poor tactic IMO but it energized the O! base. He is pissing off his base. FISA and now this.

He is destroying his own campaign.

Maybe, like the USSR, it has the seeds of its own destruction built in.

He is no longer The One, Hope and Change have been co-opted, and McSame is gone. You can't keep destroying your successive campaign themes and keep the troops on message. No message. Fini.

The Obama campaign will be studied for years. How not to do it.

Axelrod will be reduced to running the campaigns of big city machine politicians - at reduced rates until he gets some wins.

BTW do you suppose the reason Obama is burning through money so fast is that there is no honor among thieves?

Obama now has to campaign against McCain/Palin instead of the worst President evah.

I read over at Althouse a comment by Biden that he will not attack dog Sarah for fear of winding up dog meat. (well not quite so colorful) He is going to test her on policy. Good luck with that.

Another note: the Shrinking Media has put the final nail in their coffin with this election. It drew the masks off. Not only have they not helped Obama - they destroyed themselves trying.

[M. Simon]

jim,

I was just going to say the same thing. So let me say it again:

McSame is off the table.

It was a poor tactic IMO but it energized the O! base. He is pissing off his base. FISA and now this.

He is destroying his own campaign.

Maybe, like the USSR, it has the seeds of its own destruction built in.

He is no longer The One, Hope and Change have been co-opted, and McSame is gone. You can't keep destroying your successive campaign themes and keep the troops on message. No message. Fini.

The Obama campaign will be studied for years. How not to do it.

Axelrod will be reduced to running the campaigns of big city machine politicians - at reduced rates until he gets some wins.

BTW do you suppose the reason Obama is burning through money so fast is that there is no honor among thieves?

Obama now has to campaign against McCain/Palin instead of the worst President evah.

I read over at Althouse a comment by Biden that he will not attack dog Sarah for fear of winding up dog meat. (well not quite so colorful) He is going to test her on policy. Good luck with that.

Another note: the Shrinking Media has put the final nail in their coffin with this election. It drew the masks off. Not only have they not helped Obama - they destroyed themselves trying.

[Daryl Herbert]

I'm sure McCain will release an ad in the last month showing all of Sen. Obama's various conflicting statements about the surge.

The "wind surfer" ad showing John Kerry skipping back and forth was very effective. We will probably see a whole bunch of those.

McCain's camp has probably already cut most of those ads (and would edit them a little to add a few new statements between now and when he uses them).

[Elliott]

I can't help myself, so here's more from the O'Reilly interview:

SEN. OBAMA: -- but the Iraqis still haven't taken a responsibility. And we still don't have the kind of political reconciliation.

Mister, I met a mantra once...*
___________________________
*I've said it before and I'll say it again.

[Mike G in Corvallis]

BTW do you suppose the reason Obama is burning through money so fast is that there is no honor among thieves?

*blink* Do you suppose that Obama's consolation prize if/when he loses the election will be a hundred million bucks or so that he funnels to left-wing "consultants" and "publicity efforts"?

Remember, he's already gotten away with this once. Depending on whether matching funds were ever provided by donors, Obama pissed away between $50 million and $150 million on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, with much of the money going to radical friends and causes rather than to schools.

I wonder how all that presidential campaign money will be laundered ...

[Neo]

MR. O'REILLY: I think you were desperately wrong on the surge. And I think you should admit it to the nation that now we have defeated the terrorists in Iraq. And the al Qaeda came there after we invaded, as you know. Okay, we've defeated them. If we didn't, they would have used it as a staging ground.

We've also inhibited Iran from controlling the southern part of Iraq by the surge which you did not support. So why won't you say, I was right in the beginning, I was wrong about that?

SEN. OBAMA: You know, if you've listened to what I've said, and I'll repeat it right here on this show, I think that there's no doubt that the violence in down. I believe that that is a testimony to the troops that were sent and General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated, by the way, including President Bush and the other supporters.

It has gone very well, partly because of the Anbar situation and the Sunni --

MR. O'REILLY: The awakening, right.

SEN. OBAMA: -- awakening, partly because the Shi'a --

MR. O'REILLY: But if it were up to you, there wouldn't have been a surge.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, look --

MR. O'REILLY: No, no, no, no.

SEN. OBAMA: No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

MR. O'REILLY: If it were up to you, there wouldn't have been a surge.

SEN. OBAMA: No, no, no, no. Hold on.

MR. O'REILLY: You and Joe Biden -- no surge.

SEN. OBAMA: No. Hold on a second, Bill. If you look at the debate that was taking place, we had gone through five years of mismanagement of this war that I thought was disastrous. And the president wanted to double-down and continue on open-ended policy that did not create the kinds of pressure in the Iraqis to take responsibility and reconcile --

MR. O'REILLY: It worked. Come on.

SEN. OBAMA: Bill, what I've said is -- I've already said it succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.

MR. O'REILLY: Right! So why can't you just say, I was right in the beginning, and I was wrong about the surge?

SEN. OBAMA: Because there is an underlying problem with what we've done. We have reduced the violence --

MR. O'REILLY: Yeah?

SEN. OBAMA: -- but the Iraqis still haven't taken a responsibility. And we still don't have the kind of political reconciliation. We are still spending, Bill, 10 (billion dollars) to $12 billion a month.

[Neo]

I wonder if Obama is holding up the moving goalposts during the interview.

[JM Hanes]

Does it count if I watch the late night/early am O'Reilly rerun? Obama didn't congratulate John McCain in the interview, did he?

[JM Hanes]

Thanks for the transcript, Elliott! Aside from the surge and Obama's boneheaded Sunni/Shia analysis, this little exchange struck me as extremely inartful -- and I'm not referring to the syntax. He's talking about Afghanistan and putting "more pressure on Pakistan":

MR. O'REILLY: Like what?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, for example, we are providing them military aid without having enough strings attached. So they're using the military aid that we use --

MR. O'REILLY: For nothing!

SEN. OBAMA: -- to Pakistan, they're preparing for war against India.

Geez! Obama is a diplomatic disaster zone. I hate to say it, Sue, but I think O'Reilly may end up handing the McCain response team some of the most fertile fodder evah.

[JM Hanes]

Obama's hair looked really weird. Has it always looked like that? Yes, I watched it. I just couldn't resist the temptation to check out his body language, but mostly, I just couldn't resist the temptation.

Good grief, Jane Hall thinks Obama did a credible job of explaining himself. Bill O'Reilly looked Obama in the eye and decided he was not a wimp.

[kim]

Yeah, Obama's funny. Let's invade Pakistan; they're planning to invade India, you know.
=========================

[BobS]

I was tired last night a school and a football game, so I didn't have the will to listen andy Dems, but I saw some excerpts. One of his speaking teachniques is always to segway when back into a corner with "I've always said" or "I've already said" .

Its a clever techinique to use when you are being less than forthcoming. I also disarms the person asking the question to an extent to prevent probing and followup.

O'Reilly's annoying and I don't like his taste for his taste in Pearl Harbor journalsim - even with libs. But he had Obama stammering in ways that I found astonishing.

I was able to watch Hillary's interview with O'Reilly being equally tough and she handled the interview with much more calm than did Obama.

Does Tim Russerts passing leave Bill O'Reilly as the one journalist who can be trusted to ask the tough questi on the big stage. I'll never forget Russert's habit of putting up previous quotets. It was effective.

[PeterUK]

"*blink* Do you suppose that Obama's consolation prize if/when he loses the election will be a hundred million bucks or so that he funnels to left-wing "consultants" and "publicity efforts"?

Yes,but without the funneling.This is Barry's big hit.

[kim]

What I'm curious about is if he loses, will he go the way of past failed Democratic candidates and seep back into the woodwork, or will he remain a viable politician.
======================================

[PeterUK]

Insert Obama and O'Reilly,in theDead Parrot Sketch

[Jane]

“I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

Has anyone else noticed that for Obama "I've already said" is code for "i'm changing my position - again."

[kim]

Yes, it's a common rhetorical trick for liars.
=======================

[kim]

It's awfully hard to refute on the spot.
================

[Porchlight]

I'm so confused. Did the Obama interview with O'Reilly air last night? I thought it was going to be on next week.

[MarkJ]

Interesting comment by Monica Crowley on Fox about Obama's surge comments: in short, his response to O'Reilly gave her the strong perception that Obama is a man congenitally incapable of admitting mistakes.

Oddly, this is precisely the trait that Democrats have been trying to tack on to GWB for years.

Go figure.

[kim]

I think it is two or more parts, Porchlight. The CAC segment is next Tuesday. He may have walked into a trap already. I mean, worse than 'English professor who lives in the neighborhood'.
======================================

[kim]

It's very interesting. He knows what they did with CAC, but he doesn't know what has been figured out by the opposition. So he's walking a tightrope. Really, he's already hanged himself with the 'English professor' bit. It only takes an IQ of 80 to figure out that was a big fat lie.
====================================

[kim]

Walking a tightrope painting himself into a corner without a safety net and on thin, baby, ice.
=============================

[kim]

Good point, MarkJ; what Obama is excellent at is pretending to be the boy with unmeltable butter in his mouth. Had he had close questioning during the run-up, he'd have been exposed and Hillary would be the next President. Thank God the Dems have given us yet another fatally flawed hubritic mess.
=============================

[pagar]

Good morning, Jane, Maybe we should call this the "I've already Said" campaign.

[Porchlight]

Thanks, kim. I know I can go find this out on the Web but I've suddenly developed an aversion to all things Obama. I'll read the transcript, though.

[east coast]

went back to watch o'reillys talking points with obama - initially interested in his answer to option b if negotions with iran didn't work - military response. not a good idea to "tip our hand" was his response. isn't that just what his side of the aisle and backers have been doing for over 7 years.

[bio mom]

Anyone post this yet? New CBS poll out taken MTW this week. Tied at 42. 8 point Obama lead wiped away.

[Captain Hate]

SEN. OBAMA: No. Hold on a second, Bill. If you look at the debate that was taking place, we had gone through five years of mismanagement of this war that I thought was disastrous

This really frosts me and I doubt that McCain will ever address this (for a variety of reasons) so I'll rant about it here: A couple of months ago at AoS a commenter stated that Rumsfeld is really being hung out as an idiot but that the Surge had to have been preceded by a lighter more mobile force in order to be flexible enough to seize the primary strategic areas. And that to have gone in with massive, bludgeoning force would've confirmed to the Iraqis what their quisling state-controlled media had been feeding them about how we were gonna rape and kill all of them. And that by doing what we did it enabled the Iraqis to eventually see that al Qaeda was the bad guys and realize that we were the good guys, at the expense of everything that was going wrong at the time. A lose the battle to win the war type of thing.

I'm sure things like this are debated and discussed at places like West Point with more insight than I have but this as presented struck me as extremely plausible. I doubt that McCain will attempt a Rumsfeld reputation rehabilitation because from his speech last night his tactic is to run away from Bush. And a ditherer like Barry seems to lack the ability to even entertain something so removed from his idyllic worldview where everything revolves around him.

[hit and run]

Rick:
He's vastly deeper than McCain could ever hope to be. He's so damn intellectual that he can cling to belief in any absurdity that his fantastic intellectual prowess can rationalize far beyond the time when someone with a lesser intellect would simply note that it was wrong and give it up.

NHD

Nuance Hyperactivity Disorder

[NARCISO]

I just had an occassion where I had to use the 60 minutes from last week as a teaching tool.
First, up, Steve Croft's 'hardhitting Obama/Biden profile, where the latter's plagiarism was tossed off as an allegation; the Kinnock not the law school. Deep questions about Obama's bowling record, penetrating stuff like that; assurances that Obama & Biden's record is superior to McCain and Palin. The only consolation is that the polls are tied now, as they were at the time of the interview.

Next segment, was the obligatory " Americans
are killing innocent Afghan civilians" replay from the March 2007 Kapisa province incident.
Which the Washington Post and the Times of London, pointed out was a strike on a known Taliban target; the chief expert is Mark Garlasco, the HRW flack which repeats the line about targets during the Iraq War; including the factlet that no HVT were taken out; misleading to say the least. With quotes from the local Taliban tyke, and angry village elder; who had no ties to AQ or the Taliban.

The feel good story was the one about some folks coming out a prolonged coma, because of Ambien; careful distinction is made with the Schiavo case. I wanted to go into a coma after this; this is just a typical time capsule from the vault; almost blended at a molecular level with liberal media obtuseness.

[Porchlight]

Obama is in love with process. I've met a few of these people in my career and they are usually paralyzed when it comes to decision-making. They want to form more committees, run more analyses, do a survey, hold a focus group - anything to keep them from having to actually make a choice. They usually try to make all decisions by committee so they don't have to be held accountable - "oh, I wanted to go that direction, but I was voted down."

Good luck with that in the WH, Barry.

[bl]

What I find interesting is that if Bush had been the one who couldn't admit he was "wrong" it would be an example of his arrogance.

Why isnt' this true of Obama also?

[eagelwingz08]

The 63 Mets weren't as embarassing as the Obamanation. He lies to cover up his earlier statements that evidence profoundly flawed judgment. You know he lies whenever he says, "As I've always said" or words to that effect. Yet no one can ever find those words he always said before he changes his course. The only good thing to come out of this is that the netroots may be having conniptions that the Obamanation is throwing the surge is a failure under the bus (will Reid and Peelousy follow? stay tuned) and that the dems are Republicanizing their foreign policy stands (disingenuously of course), which means the Republican brand on foreign policy still whups the dem brand of cut and run and surrender and appeasement.

[Jane]

I spoke about the LUN in the other thread. In case you haven't seen it, I encourage you to read this response to the dissing of Sarah's speech.

[thelonereader]

Porchlight,
You hit the nail on the head with that insight to Obama, he IS afraid of making decisions hence his voting present most of his career. Previously his voting record has been attributed to politics but I agree it is the fear of making a real decision- though I do believe that the Chicago political machine behind Obama has used his lack of (indecisive) record to push him forward. He really has been a puppet, and he doesn't even know it.

[anduril]

Thoughtful column here:
Maliki drops the mask: With his tough stance on US withdrawal, Sunni militias and the Kurds Iraq's leader risks doom.

Anyone who thinks the Surge transformed the dynamics of Iraqi society has another think coming:

What's up with Nouri al-Maliki? As security anxieties subside in this slowly calming city, political speculation has rarely been so intense. First, it was Maliki's demand that all US troops leave Iraq by the end of 2011. Then came signs that his government wants to undermine the Sunni tribal militias, known as the Awakening councils, on whom the Americans have relied to defeat al-Qaida in Iraq. Now there are moves to take on the powerful Kurdish peshmerga troops and push them out of disputed areas in the strategic central province of Diyala.

Why is the prime minister doing this? Is "the puppet breaking his strings", as one Arab newspaper put it? Or is the more appropriate metaphor "dropping the mask"? Those who knew Maliki in exile in Syria during Saddam Hussein's time now recall that he opposed the US-led invasion. His Daawa party did not attend the eve-of-invasion conference of US- and UK-supported exiles in London, and he opposed the party's decision six months later to join the hand-picked "governing council" set up by the first occupation overlord, Paul Bremer.

Maliki's new line has discomforted the Americans. Some officials put on a brave face, saying it is a sign of Iraqi confidence in their own sovereignty, a development that, of course, they support as proof that the Bush administration's strategy of rebuilding a proud country is succeeding. Others say it reflects overconfidence, even hubris, as Iraq is a long way from being able to survive without US military protection.

...

But if Maliki wants to present a new image as a man who stands up to the Americans, why does he choose this moment to go after Sunnis and Kurds? The principle of disarming all militias, and not just those of his Shia rivals, such as Sadr, may be laudable but the timing is highly risky and threatens to overload the circuits. Going after the Sunnis and Kurds may fail, dooming Maliki to defeat. Many Sunnis already believe he is a tool of the Iranians. Now they say his sudden anti-Americanism is no proof of Iraqi patriotism, but just shows he is a tool of Tehran. The Iranians want the US out of Iraq, not only in order to undermine US credibility in the region. They interpret Washington's support for the Awakening councils as a tilt towards the Sunnis and an effort to re-balance Iraqi politics from the Shia dominance of the early post-invasion period.

Maliki's tough stance towards the US could doom him personally. The US toppled his predecessor, Ibrahim Jaaferi, and, even though US power in Iraq has declined since then, it may find a way to remove Maliki too. It would not demand that the prime minister go, as it did in 2006, but could undermine his parliamentary majority. The US has alternative candidates, including the ambitious vice-president, Adel Abdel Mahdi, and the Sunni defence minister, Abdul Qader al-Obeidi, who told the New York Times in January that US troops would be needed for another 10 years.

Whatever his motives, Maliki's move has certainly shaken up Iraqi politics and forced the issue of a clear US departure timetable on to the agenda. The Iraqi prime minister has put Bush and McCain on to the back foot, and given help to Obama. Whether Maliki or Bush blinks first remains to be seen.

A tilt toward the Sunnis? Wait a minute--weren't the Sunnis the bad guys just a year ago? Yeah, but then the Awakening made them good guys--our guys, in fact. But wasn't it Sunnis who bombed the WTC and the Pentagon? Aren't they the Wahabbists and al Qaeda and the Taliban? Weren't they behind the Khan network that proliferated nuke technology from Pakistan? But the Kurds are Sunnis, and they're are pals, when they're not slaughtering minority Christians! And the Shiites, gosh, they were the good guys at first because they were oppressed! But now they want us out and want to attack our Sunni best friends--or some of them do. Geez, this is getting to be a pretty complicated balancing act. What happened to the miracle of the Surge?

[kim]

Ooh, excellent rant, Jane. The irony is that Obama is the one bitterly clinging to his religion.
=============================

[kim]

anduril, you've got to take the Guardian with a grain of salt. They still want us to lose the war. Look, thoughtful as you are, you do not have a very good filter for leftist propaganda; it all seems so reasonable to you.
=============================

[kim]

Are you just figuring out that it is complicated over there? You should read narciso. Yes, they are seizing control of their own destiny. Sounds like a winner to me.
==================================

[Porchlight]

Thanks, lonereader. I think it also sort of explains the community organizer vs. mayor thing. Organizers aren't concerned with results - like making things better for those they claim to help - so much as the "empowerment engendered by the process." Shouting at rallies, bullying officials, it's all good. No worries if we spent the money and nothing really came of it as long as the process felt good.

Whereas a mayor - as Palin pointed out - must get results or face the voters.

[MikeS]

Obama was wrong about the Surge. The reason that is important is because that has the potential to take hold of a persons attention.

Once McCain has their attention he can argue that it appears Obama is also wrong about foreign policy and how to deal with dictators. Hillary said she thought Obama's plan to speak to them without preconditions was irresponsible.

It does also seem that Obama was wrong about NAFTA, at least that's what his adviser Austan Goolsbe told the Canadian Embassy.

It also appears that Obama is wrong about energy, that American's and the U.S. economy can afford outrageous fuel prices until alternative sources of energy become economically feasible.

Speaking of the economy, many people say Obama is wrong about taxation, that high business taxes drive businesses and jobs away from the country.

[bio mom]

Really horrible jobs numbers today. Stock market crashing.

[bgates]

It's awfully hard to refute on the spot.
How about, "when have you said that before?"
Better yet, some of the old MTP pull-quotes.
Hell, if O'Reilly or any of the rest of these guys could afford to get an intern a Google license, just look up Obama's previous positions on an issue during the interview.

[anduril]

Bret Stephens points out today:

Though Americans naturally focus on the more than 4,000 U.S. servicemen killed so far since the country was liberated in April 2003, that figure pales in comparison with the number of Iraqis killed in inter- and intra-sectarian violence: Sunnis against Shiites and Kurds, Sunnis against Sunnis, Shiites against Sunnis, Shiites against Shiites. Cumulatively, the number of civilian deaths since early 2006, when sectarian fighting got under way in earnest, now stands at just over 100,000 (according to the Brookings Institution).

Lots of revenge to be taken when the US bugs out.

[centralcal]

For those asking last night, O'Reilly will be showing snippets of the Obama interview through Thursday of next week. Ratings, doncha know. A little bit of Q and A each night to draw in more viewers.

[Al Greenberg]

Higher energy costs are hurting the economy with higher business costs cutting margins and lower consumer discretionary spending. Business needs to offset lower margins with lower payroll.

We need to get energy costs down. I wonder what's the better way? Tapping our resources here & nuclear or checking our tire pressure?

[syn]

Please remember where credit is due,Gen Petraeus is the man behind the surge and he was the one who changed the Rules of Engagement, Bush implemented Petraeus's COIN plan; all McCain did was call for more troops, not saying McCain didn't do good for Iraq just saying he was not the one responsible for the surge.

Congresspeople are polticians who don't know how to win wars, remember McCain has been in Congress longer than he served in the military. His time in the military is worthly of all praise, his time in the corrupt Congress has seeped into his mindset.

[ex-democrat]

anduril - the revenge has been taken; that's why we can bug out.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

[T]houghtful as you are, you do not have a very good filter for leftist propaganda; it all seems so reasonable to you.

I think, like everyone, he's just got a filter for what agrees with what he wants to believe. It's kind of tough to beat that one.

Part of the cure is to look for "surprise" value. It's not a surprise when Obama says "the surge didn't work." It is a surprise when he says "the surge did work." Surprise means information content. (This is, in fact, a mathematical truth.)

It's a shock when he says, as he did with O'Reilly, that the surge worked, but it still didn't work anyway.

[Porchlight]

Thanks for the update, centralcal. I'll be sure not to watch. ;) I'm so glad my local AM talk radio station replaced O'Reilly with Bill Bennett in the early morning slot.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Really horrible jobs numbers today. Stock market crashing.

Hate it when that happens.

[ex-democrat]

syn - he took a position that was contrary to his self-interest.
the fact that his position turns out to have been right says something.
but the fact that his opponent has never done anything like that is the real take-away.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Lots of revenge to be taken when the US bugs out.

Sounds like we might need a continuing presence then, hmmm?

[ex-democrat]

charlie - combine your thought with one of my favorites in my field - the exception to the hearsay rule for 'statements against self interest.'

[Bob Smith]

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows the beginning of John McCain’s convention bounce and the race is essentially back where it was before Barack Obama’s bounce. Obama now attracts 46% of the vote while McCain earns 45%. When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 48%, McCain 46%

Tracking Poll results are based upon nightly telephone interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. Virtually all of the interviews for today’s update were completed before McCain’s speech last night. Roughly two-thirds of the interviews were completed before Palin’s speech on Wednesday night.

[matt]

McCain's new ad:

Barack Obama; Wrong on the Surge; Wrong on Iraq; Wrong for America

[clarice]

Congressional experience like legal training is no real preparation for the exercise of executive functions. Yet because of a number of things, including the high cost of running for office and the need for a nationally recognized name to garner those funds, fewer and fewer non Congressmen get a real chance to run for high office.
And fewer and fewer Congress members lack a law degree because lawyers seem to have an edge up on debating, etc which helps them win.

[hrtshpdbox]

I'd say that McCain's in trouble if he's not ahead two or three points by the middle of next week. I think he will be, so I'm not worried. When do you think the 527 action on Ayres et al will begin in earnest?

[GMax]

Stock market crashing.

Hardly the Dow is off 90 points right now, or .8%.

The Dow has shown the stock market marking time in a fairly narrow 11,000 to 11,600 range for about the last three months. It rallies and then fall back.

Job numbers show the unemployment picture to be worse than it has been in quite some time, but not a disaster.

Frankly though its no time to be arguing for a tax increase, or make that multiple taxes increased. How will that encourage growth, well except that it all gets spent by the government so if you want a bureacrat job you might think this is a good thing I guess.

[fdcol63]

Someone needs to tell Obama that maybe a Surge is needed in Chicago:

Nearly 125 Shot Dead In Chicago Over Summer
Total Is About Double The Death Toll In Iraq

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.summer.shootings.2.810166.html

If this is the kind success in "community organizing" he did in his own hometown, what would he do to the rest of the country?

[Jane]

You know, maybe the sweetest thing about Palin is her effect on the media. Hot Air has a piece where they accused McCain of putting her in a "cone of silence" and the McCain campaign told them to pound sand. (LUN)

I truly hope this effect is the beginning of the end for those a-holes.

[PaulL]

Re Rasmussen: He's reporting on three days of polling, and two out of those three days were before Sarah spoke. Nevertheless, just one day of polling that included Sarah was enough to wipe out three points or so of Obama's lead. I look for McCain to be in the lead by Monday.

[fdcol63]

" ... for those a-holes. "

Make that: liberal, biased, hypocritical, sanctimonious, obfuscating, and lying a-holes.

[clarice]

Jane--I wouldn't want to be Peggy Noonan, Andrea Mitchell or Sally Quinn right now--their masks have slipped to reveal bitter, snobbish, jealous elitists . Now, in large part they were hired because then there were too few women in broadcasting and it was felt they'd represent the women's view. It now appears that they are not representative of most of their women viewers at all.

Just as Jann Wenner's UsWeekly confused the gals who picked up their rag at the supermarket checkout with , say, Gloria Steinem.

[Ranger]

When do you think the 527 action on Ayres et al will begin in earnest?

Posted by: hrtshpdbox | September 05, 2008 at 10:45 AM

I think that depends on how Obama deals with the challenge on education that McCain laid down last night. If Obama ignores it, then it gets played as, 'why won't Obama talk about education? Because he doesn't want you to know about Bill Ayers.' But, if Obama doesn engage on education, then it gets played as 'Obama says he wants to reform education, but where do his ideas of education reform come from? Bill (Education is Revolution) Ayers.'

McCain boxed Obama in so that when Ayers does come up now, it is part of a legitimate policy debate, not just "guilt by association."

[Semanticleo]

"I'd say that McCain's in trouble if he's not ahead two or three points by the middle of next week. I think he will be, so I'm not worried. When do you think the 527 action on Ayres et al will begin in earnest?"

Yeah, the RNC is gonna keep her away from the Press for a while because they want to increase the odds for a post convention bump for MCCain. No interviews. The 'Cone of Silence' continues, but she may be forced to come out after more is unearthed by Maguire's paper of record, The National Enquirer.

[GMax]

Breaking from TVWEEK

BIG NEWS!

Presidential candidate John McCain's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention drew more television viewers than his rival Barack Obama attracted at the Democratic party's event last week, according to preliminary ratings from Nielsen Media Research.

Across all broadcast networks Thursday, Sen. McCain’s speech ended the night with a 4.8 rating/7 share, compared to Sen. Obama’s 4.3/7 average, according to overnight numbers from metered households in 55 U.S. markets measured by Nielsen. These ratings are preliminary, however, and are subject to change.

Read it and weep Cleo!

[Semanticleo]

The first thing I would ask her, given the opportunity;

"You spoke disparagingly of the 'Bridge to Nowhere' in your speech, but many people are asking, 'what did you do with the Federal Funds?'.

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN3125537020080901?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10112

"The state, however, never gave back any of the money that was originally earmarked for the Gravina Island bridge, said Weinstein and Elerding.

In fact, the Palin administration has spent "tens of millions of dollars" in federal funds to start building a road on Gravina Island that is supposed to link up to the yet-to-be-built bridge, Weinstein said."

[clarice]

If only he'd listened to ecxperts like Noonan and named Hutchinson or Pawlenty..HEH

[fdcol63]

Did anyone catch MSNBC this morning, between 7 - 7:30 AM ET?

The sparring between Joe Scarborough and his co-anchors, especially the ditzy twit Mika Brzezinski, continues. LOL

[RichatUF]

Really horrible jobs numbers today. Stock market crashing.

I saw the jobs number and that is what you get when the government extends unemployment benefits, searches for people who qualify, and raises the minimum wage. The unemployment number is the laggard though and with strong productivity, increases in factory orders, and waning oil prices the employment numbers should improved this quarter.

The stock market is in an air pocket of bad news: hedge fund redemptions (the funds have to sell all their good stuff to raise capital), some commodities funds are blowing up, wind is blowing through the cracks in European banks, and the Lehman deal with KDB seems to be an anchor around their neck.

YMMV.

[sbw]

Rick: He's vastly deeper than McCain could ever hope to be

... in a very shallow way.

[PeterUK]

"start building a road on Gravina Island that is supposed to link up to the yet-to-be-built bridge, Weinstein said."

Well yes,that is what they do,build the road first,makes it possible to get the heavy equipment to the site of the bridge.

[sbw]

Porchlight: Obama is in love with process.

I think a better way to phrase it is that Obama wants the authority without the responsibility. He wants process as a shield. He is not enamored by process, but with the protection it gives -- and that's because, deep inside, he is terminally insecure.

[Process, on the other hand, is something we need more of. We seldom approach thinking dynamically in school... everything is Newtonian, still snapshots.]

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Reality has overtaken Obama at long last:

But he's still fighting it.

[centralcal]

Jane: I couldn't be happier with Nicole Wallace's remarks to Carney! One of the energizing aspects of the Palin nomination, is that FINALLY the GOP is going after the liberal media and telling them that they really aren't RELEVENT any longer.

And, I think Oprah has boxed herself into a no-win situation. She lost popularity over her support for and fawning over Obama. She stands to lose even more by boycotting Sarah.

Peggy Noonan can also go "pound sand!"

[Semanticleo]

'makes it possible to get the heavy equipment to the site of the bridge." (to Nowhere)

Excellent point, Poindexter.....

[Charlie (Colorado)]

charlie - combine your thought with one of my favorites in my field - the exception to the hearsay rule for 'statements against self interest.'

Precisely. The mathematical definition of "information" is "log base 2 of the size of the surprise." An admission against interest increases the size of the surprise.

[PaulL]

"Bridge to Somewhere" -- I don't know if it has quite the ring to it as Bridge to Nowhere. I think the response would be, "Well, I would hope so."