Speaking of charisma

Katie Couric of all people has started actually asking real questions. Then the WaPo realized how flawed his war position is. Is the emperor wearing any clothes? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/22/eveningnews/main4283623.shtml?source=mostpop_story 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. Couric: And I really don't mean to belabor this, Senator, because I'm really, I'm trying … to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq … Obama: Yes. Couric … would exist today without the surge? Obama: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there's no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that, not just today, not just yesterday, but I've said that previously. What that doesn't change is that we've got to have a different strategic approach if we're going to make America as safe as possible. Mr. Obama in Iraq Did he really find support for his withdrawal plan? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/22/AR2008072202462.html ... THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy. ... Yet Mr. Obama's account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is "the central front" for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable.

Oh, don't go telling Gruss that his personal savior Barack Obama is a foolish mortal, he'll just die. On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:53 AM, sam  wrote: > Katie Couric of all people has started actually asking real questions. Then the WaPo realized how flawed his war position is. Is the emperor wearing any clothes? > > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/22/eveningnews/main4283623.shtml?source=mostpop_story

> Sam wrote: > 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. The odd thing about the "controversy" is that nobody, including Obama, has ever said that increasing troop levels wouldn't bring down violence. Shinseki got fired for suggesting such a thing and Powell, as well as most of the senior military leadership, quit because Bush and Rummy said more troops WEREN'T needed to bring down violence. The question is, did the surge "work", if we define "work" progressing US strategic objectives? As Robert has pointed out for us so very many times, neither he nor any Iraq deployment supporter, can tell you what those objectives are. If you don't have objectives, and you're not measuring them with anything, then you can't say whether anything has worked. If you want to define "worked" as bringing down troop level, the surge worked - just like Shinseki was fired for saying.  As usual, In grand Bush style, he waits until there's not one logical thread of doubt left that his 1st idea is totally fucking moronic.  Then he does the right thing.  Like everyone told him too. If, on the other hand, we want to define "worked" as getting our troops home, then it's failed. Success through solid management is, apparently, a very difficult task for neo-cons to grasp.