Why is the media giving Obama a pass on the surge?

[Dos Equis]

And why the biased media coverage?  Good discussion about this last night on Larry King.  Small excerpt about media coverage:

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, "U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT," ADVISED NIXON, FORD, REAGAN, CLINTON: Absolutely. I do think the coverage has been unbalanced. "The Tyndall Report," which measures these things, he finds that the network news programs have devoted far more time to Obama than they have to McCain.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/21/lkl.01.html

Regarding the surge, I agree with Beck:

BECK: Peter, I have never seen -- I've never anything like it. For one, here we have Barack Obama -- a guy who was dead wrong on the surge, said that violence would not be reduced. He said if we did the surge, it would actually increase. In 2004, everybody was saying that you couldn't vote for a man who wouldn't at least admit his mistakes. And I'm a conservative. I think Bush bungled this war for two years. It was a nightmare. And I was at least honest enough to say Bush, you've got to recognize your mistake and maybe it was a mistake for me to vote for you if you can't recognize your mistake.

Should Barack Obama acknowledge his mistake?

And shouldn't the media hold his feet to the fire and say you made a colossal misjudgment on the surge?

[Colossus_500]

And why the biased media coverage?  Good discussion about this last night on Larry King.  Small excerpt about media coverage:

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, "U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT," ADVISED NIXON, FORD, REAGAN, CLINTON: Absolutely. I do think the coverage has been unbalanced. "The Tyndall Report," which measures these things, he finds that the network news programs have devoted far more time to Obama than they have to McCain.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/21/lkl.01.html

Regarding the surge, I agree with Beck:

BECK: Peter, I have never seen -- I've never anything like it. For one, here we have Barack Obama -- a guy who was dead wrong on the surge, said that violence would not be reduced. He said if we did the surge, it would actually increase. In 2004, everybody was saying that you couldn't vote for a man who wouldn't at least admit his mistakes. And I'm a conservative. I think Bush bungled this war for two years. It was a nightmare. And I was at least honest enough to say Bush, you've got to recognize your mistake and maybe it was a mistake for me to vote for you if you can't recognize your mistake.

Should Barack Obama acknowledge his mistake?

And shouldn't the media hold his feet to the fire and say you made a colossal misjudgment on the surge?

Barack Obama doesn't have to acknowledge any mistakes he's made.  When Barack speaks we should all listen.   

[headhuntersix]

So says the Obamessiah, so it must be done.

[youandme]

Barack Obama doesn't have to acknowledge any mistakes he's made.  When Barack speaks we should all listen.   

Basically.

[headhuntersix]

I just heard a BBC World News guy making fun of Obama's American press pack, saying they're "starting to feel a little manipulated." Ya don't say

[Colossus_500]

I just heard a BBC World News guy making fun of Obama's American press pack, saying they're "starting to feel a little manipulated." Ya don't say

LOL!

[tonymctones]

good question and good point as well another good question is why ppl continue to buy into his iraq exit strategy without questioning or acknowledging this fact is beyond me(see some of the threads started today)

[Decker]

Obama cannot say the Surge is a success at any time.

If he did, then his enemies would pounce on that as some sort of vindication for the single worst foreign policy blunder in American history, namely the conquering of Iraq.

[Dos Equis]

Obama cannot say the Surge is a success at any time.

If he did, then his enemies would pounce on that as some sort of vindication for the single worst foreign policy blunder in American history, namely the conquering of Iraq.

Welcome back.   

The fact is he said the surge would increase violence.  He was wrong.  Huge error in judgment.  McCain was right.  The media should be all over him.  Instead, they're treating him like the Messiah. 

[Decker]

Welcome back.   

The fact is he said the surge would increase violence.  He was wrong.  Huge error in judgment.  McCain was right.  The media should be all over him.  Instead, they're treating him like the Messiah. 

Hey Bud.  Thanks.

The Surge did increase violence.  Look at the pre and post surge numbers.  Only after the occupation of Iraq had been escalated for a year or so and the US paid off the insurgents that were attacking us and after several million Iraqis fled Iraq did some of the violence curb.

And still we have this:

But civilian deaths have dropped from a peak of nearly 4,000 a month from December 2006 to January 2007 to about 500 a month as of May, and U.S. troop deaths have dropped from 126 in May 2007 to an all-time low of 19 in May 2008.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/23/iraq.security/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Civilian deaths down to 500 a month?

Sounds like an ongoing disaster to me.

[Dos Equis]

Hey Bud.  Thanks.

The Surge did increase violence.  Look at the pre and post surge numbers.  Only after the occupation of Iraq had been escalated for a year or so and the US paid off the insurgents that were attacking us and after several million Iraqis fled Iraq did some of the violence curb.

And still we have this:

But civilian deaths have dropped from a peak of nearly 4,000 a month from December 2006 to January 2007 to about 500 a month as of May, and U.S. troop deaths have dropped from 126 in May 2007 to an all-time low of 19 in May 2008.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/23/iraq.security/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Civilian deaths down to 500 a month?

Sounds like an ongoing disaster to me.

Spin.  The surge worked.  Obama was wrong.  He expressly said violence would increase.  McCain was right.  McCain took a very unpopular position in supporting the surge.  Speaks volumes about their respective judgment, particularly on military matters.

I think it's appalling how the media refuses to hold Obama accountable for this.  They are drinking the Kool-Aid.   

[Decker]

Spin.  The surge worked.  Obama was wrong.  He expressly said violence would increase.  McCain was right.  McCain took a very unpopular position in supporting the surge.  Speaks volumes about their respective judgment, particularly on military matters.

I think it's appalling how the media refuses to hold Obama accountable for this.  They are drinking the Kool-Aid.   

500 dead a month is spin?  Escalation of the occupation is not a success in his books apparently.  Violence cannot escalate forever.  Diminishing returns happens. 

The words "success" and "Iraq occupation" should not be mixed.  That would lend subtle credence to the claims that good things can come from naked, illegal aggression. 

Pres. Bush lied all the time to start the war.  Now Obama is trying to clean up Bush's profound mess and you chastise him for lying.  If anything, a president has to be practical even if it means backtracking on prior beliefs.  Is that applicable here?  I don't know.  I don't think Obama has done anything egregious.

And come on BB, the Surge was unpopular?  Only if you don't count the entire Republican majority party..

[240 is Back]

Surge was a solution to a fvckup that Bush started.

Surge was coming up with a really witty way to clean up the bottle of wine you broke on your parents' ice carpet, before they get home.

You shouldn't have broken the bottle in the first place, dumbshit.

[Dos Equis]

500 dead a month is spin?  Escalation of the occupation is not a success in his books apparently.  Violence cannot escalate forever.  Diminishing returns happens. 

The words "success" and "Iraq occupation" should not be mixed.  That would lend subtle credence to the claims that good things can come from naked, illegal aggression. 

Pres. Bush lied all the time to start the war.  Now Obama is trying to clean up Bush's profound mess and you chastise him for lying.  If anything, a president has to be practical even if it means backtracking on prior beliefs.  Is that applicable here?  I don't know.  I don't think Obama has done anything egregious.

And come on BB, the Surge was unpopular?  Only if you don't count the entire Republican majority party..

I'll need to check the media coverage, but my recollection is the surge was roundly criticized. 

Also, Obama says he still wouldn't support the surge.    And this man wants to be Commander in Chief?  I don't think so. 

[Fury]

Surge was a solution to a fvckup that Bush started.

Surge was coming up with a really witty way to clean up the bottle of wine you broke on your parents' ice carpet, before they get home.

You shouldn't have broken the bottle in the first place, dumbshit.

Did it work or not? That's the question. Not whether or not Bush fucked it up to start. Obama said it wouldn't. It worked superbly. Violence in Iraq is the lowest it's been in half a decade.

[tonymctones]

Surge was a solution to a fvckup that Bush started.

Surge was coming up with a really witty way to clean up the bottle of wine you broke on your parents' ice carpet, before they get home.

You shouldn't have broken the bottle in the first place, dumbshit.

what you seem to fail to realize with your other threads today is that we wouldnt be in a position to pull out or even consider pulling out anytime soon if we didnt have a surge...so obama who was against the surge who says he would pull out in 16 months would have left the country in termoil.

[240 is Back]

Earth to people who jump to conclusions...

We don't know if the surge worked yet.

We know violence has subsided.  Is it because the 5000 jihadists doing all the damage were killed in the last 12 months?  Or is it because the jihadists decided to cycle down their attacks until the large troop presence left, before opening back up shop with renewed violence?

We'll know about 6-12 months AFTER the surge ends.  Not in July, as we're finally arriving at pre-surge levels.

Brutal counting chickens before they have hatched.

[tonymctones]

Earth to people who jump to conclusions...

We don't know if the surge worked yet.

We know violence has subsided.  Is it because the 5000 jihadists doing all the damage were killed in the last 12 months?  Or is it because the jihadists decided to cycle down their attacks until the large troop presence left, before opening back up shop with renewed violence?

We'll know about 6-12 months AFTER the surge ends.  Not in July, as we're finally arriving at pre-surge levels.

Brutal counting chickens before they have hatched.

this coming from the king of polls
LOL look at the causalties after and before the surge, look at the precious checkpoints you pointed out in another thread before and after the surge, your right i guess will have to wait and see.

so pulling out in 16 months would be bad then and drop the country back into tormoil...like i said...either way he was or is wrong.

[headhuntersix]

Earth to people who jump to conclusions...

We don't know if the surge worked yet.

We know violence has subsided.  Is it because the 5000 jihadists doing all the damage were killed in the last 12 months?  Or is it because the jihadists decided to cycle down their attacks until the large troop presence left, before opening back up shop with renewed violence?

We'll know about 6-12 months AFTER the surge ends.  Not in July, as we're finally arriving at pre-surge levels.

Brutal counting chickens before they have hatched.

Earth to people who don't get to sit in on with briefs by the guy running the war. Violence is down by 82%. Civil casulties have dropped off, way off. US casulties are way way down. The Madi army was crushed, and their leadership has fled to Iran. The foreign fighters coming in from Syria and elsewhere has dropped to a trickle. We've smashed the rings bringing them in. The money guys are getting rolled up. AQI is moving back to the tribal area's in Pakistan. Yes they can still pull off attacks, the "surge" is part of a larger stategy called COIN, developed by P4 at FT Leavenworth. He pulled in experts in all kinds of fields from military to shrinks....its not just for Iraq but anywhere we fight a low intensity fight. WE're winning, and we'll be mostly out by 20011.

[Dos Equis]

Earth to people who don't get to sit in on with briefs by the guy running the war. Violence is down by 82%. Civil casulties have dropped off, way off. US casulties are way way down. The Madi army was crushed, and their leadership has fled to Iran. The foreign fighters coming in from Syria and elsewhere has dropped to a trickle. We've smashed the rings bringing them in. The money guys are getting rolled up. AQI is moving back to the tribal area's in Pakistan. Yes they can still pull off attacks, the "surge" is part of a larger stategy called COIN, developed by P4 at FT Leavenworth. He pulled in experts in all kinds of fields from military to shrinks....its not just for Iraq but anywhere we fight a low intensity fight. WE're winning, and we'll be mostly out by 20011.

Now don't go try introducing facts into this discussion.  You'll just confuse some people. 

[240 is Back]

Earth to people who don't get to sit in on with briefs by the guy running the war. Violence is down by 82%. Civil casulties have dropped off, way off. US casulties are way way down. The Madi army was crushed, and their leadership has fled to Iran. The foreign fighters coming in from Syria and elsewhere has dropped to a trickle. We've smashed the rings bringing them in. The money guys are getting rolled up. AQI is moving back to the tribal area's in Pakistan. Yes they can still pull off attacks, the "surge" is part of a larger stategy called COIN, developed by P4 at FT Leavenworth. He pulled in experts in all kinds of fields from military to shrinks....its not just for Iraq but anywhere we fight a low intensity fight. WE're winning, and we'll be mostly out by 20011.

This may all be true.

But it still doesn't tell us if it was successful.  We'll know in 6 - 12 months.  Their leadership is in Iran, you say.  Once the USA leaves (which I don't think we shoudl do -fck what their leadership says), what is to stop them from coming back in and picking up where they left off? 

You might be right.  But to ASSUME that they won't be back to take on the unguarded streets once we leave is silly.

[a_joker10]

This may all be true.

But it still doesn't tell us if it was successful.  We'll know in 6 - 12 months.  Their leadership is in Iran, you say.  Once the USA leaves (which I don't think we shoudl do -fck what their leadership says), what is to stop them from coming back in and picking up where they left off? 

You might be right.  But to ASSUME that they won't be back to take on the unguarded streets once we leave is silly.

That's the whole point of time horizons or basing policy on the military commanders.

Obama doesn't want to do that. Its not about winning in Iraq. Its about money for domestic policy.

"Not surprisingly he wants to retain as much flexibility as possible," Obama said of the general, with whom he met in recent days while touring Iraq and Afghanistan.

"I think he wants maximum flexibility to be able to — to do what he believes needs to be done inside of Iraq.

"But keep in mind, for example, one of General Petraeus' responsibilities is not to think about how could we be using some of that $10 billion a month to shore up a U.S. economy that is really hurting right now," Obama said.

[headhuntersix]

Its almost a different debate.....if Obama would simply say well, we'd like to win but we're broke, then its different. He's saying we're sending 2 bde's more to Afghanistan. That will mean bigger bases, which we'd need. It would mean reworking contracts to feed em, house em and support em. Bagram can't support that, and the smaller FOBs can't either. Obama is just moving people, where its harder to support troops, then it is in Iraq.

[SAMSON123]

And why the biased media coverage?  Good discussion about this last night on Larry King.  Small excerpt about media coverage:

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, "U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT," ADVISED NIXON, FORD, REAGAN, CLINTON: Absolutely. I do think the coverage has been unbalanced. "The Tyndall Report," which measures these things, he finds that the network news programs have devoted far more time to Obama than they have to McCain.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/21/lkl.01.html

Regarding the surge, I agree with Beck:

BECK: Peter, I have never seen -- I've never anything like it. For one, here we have Barack Obama -- a guy who was dead wrong on the surge, said that violence would not be reduced. He said if we did the surge, it would actually increase. In 2004, everybody was saying that you couldn't vote for a man who wouldn't at least admit his mistakes. And I'm a conservative. I think Bush bungled this war for two years. It was a nightmare. And I was at least honest enough to say Bush, you've got to recognize your mistake and maybe it was a mistake for me to vote for you if you can't recognize your mistake.

Should Barack Obama acknowledge his mistake?

And shouldn't the media hold his feet to the fire and say you made a colossal misjudgment on the surge?

HAHAH... MAYBE AMERICA WOULD DO BETTER TO ACKNOWLEDGE ITS LIE AS TO WHY IT ILLEGALLY INVADED IRAQ TO BEGIN WITH...HMMM.. WAS IT OVER OIL??? DOESN'T TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTIST.

[youandme]

HAHAH... MAYBE AMERICA WOULD DO BETTER TO ACKNOWLEDGE ITS LIE AS TO WHY IT ILLEGALLY INVADED IRAQ TO BEGIN WITH...HMMM.. WAS IT OVER OIL??? DOESN'T TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTIST.

Oh brother, here is Samsonite, exploding with hate for America. Samson you must have a pending criminal or civil case against you or something, your a few clicks away from the nut house.