Obama and the Surge and Afghanistan

Barack Obama's carefully orchestrated globetrotting has hit some bumps.

The media's saturation coverage of Obama on tour has uncovered some less than positive moments for Obama.

An interview with Terry Moran on ABC's World News showed that Obama isn't exactly as silver-tongued as he's been made out to be.

Transcript excerpt, from NewsBusters:

MORAN: This is Obama's second trip to Iraq. His first was in January 2006 when the country was plunged into horrific violence. But the surge of U.S. troops, combined with ordinary Iraqis' rejection of both al-Qaeda and Shiite extremists, has transformed the country. Attacks are down by more than 80 percent nationwide. U.S. combat casualties have plummeted -- five this month so far, compared with 78 last July. And Baghdad has a pulse again. If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?

OBAMA: No, because, keep in mind that-

MORAN: You wouldn't?

OBAMA: Well, no, keep in mind, these kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. You know, hindsight is 20/20. But I think that, what I am absolutely convinced of is that at that time, we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with.

What a lame answer!

This isn't hypothetical. It's a straightforward question: "Knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?"

The arrogant Obama refused to admit that he was wrong.

The surge was the right thing to do. It was good policy and produced good results.

Obama and his Dem cohorts were wrong. Rather than have the decency to acknowledge that his opposition was a mistake and take the opportunity to praise the accomplishments of the U.S. military, Obama stubbornly claims that he still was right to oppose the surge, now a proven success.

Obama didn't only have problems with Moran. Katie Couric wasn't rolling over for Obama. She questioned him about the surge and his incredibly stupid statements, as well as Afghanistan.

Couric deserves some credit for trying to get Obama to actually answer her questions, to provide answers with substance rather than fluff.

Transcript excerpt:

Couric: Before the surge, as you know, Senator, there were 80 to 100 U.S. casualties a month, the country was rife with sectarian violence, and you raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, "Why?"

Obama: Well … because … what I was referring to, and I've consistently referred to, is the need for a strategy that actually concludes our involvement in Iraq and moves Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.

Couric: But didn't the surge …

Obama: And …

Couric: …help do that?

Obama: Let me finish, Katie. What happens is that if we continue to put $10 billion to $12 billion a month into Iraq, if we are willing to send as many troops as we can muster continually into Iraq? There's no doubt that that's gonna have an impact. But it doesn't meet our long-term strategic goal, which is to make the American people safer over the long term. If that means that we're detracting from our efforts in Afghanistan, where conditions are deteriorating, if it means that we are distracted from going after Osama bin Laden who is still sending out audio tapes and is operating training camps where we know terrorists' actions are being plotted.

If we have shifted away from the central front of terrorism as a consequence of enormous and continuing investments in Iraq, then that's a poor strategic choice. And ultimately, what we've got to do is - we have to recognize that Iraq is just one of our … security problems. It's not the only one.

We've got big problems in Afghanistan. We've got a significant threat in Iran. We've got to deal with Pakistan and the fact that there are safe havens there. Those are all the factors and all the issues that I've gotta take into account when I'm president of the United States.

Couric: All that may be true. But do you not give the surge any credit for reducing violence in Iraq?

Obama: No, no … of course I have. There is no doubt that the extraordinary work of our U.S. forces has contributed to a lessening of the violence, just as making sure that the Sadr militia stood down or the fact that the Sunni tribes decided to flip and work with us instead of with al-Qaeda - something that we hadn't anticipated happening.

All those things have contributed to a reduction in violence. So this, in no way, detracts from the great efforts of our young men and women in uniform. In fact, that's one of the most striking things about visiting Iraq is to see how dedicated they are, what a great job they do - all those things … are critically important. What I'm saying is it does not solve the broader strategic question that we have been dealing with over the last five, six, seven years. And that is how do we take the limited resources we have, both militarily and financially, and apply them in such a way that we are making America as safe as possible? And I believe that my approach is the right one.

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.

Couric: If you believe, Senator, Afghanistan is, in fact, the central front in the war on terror, why was this your first trip there? And why didn't you hold a single hearing as chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the fighting force there?

Obama: Well, the, actually, the subcommittee that I chair is the European subcommittee. And any issues related to Afghanistan were always dealt with in the full committee, precisely because it's so important. That's not a matter that you would deal with in a subcommittee setting. And the fact that I didn't visit Afghanistan doesn't detract from my accurate assessment that this has been the central front on terror.

I've been saying for over a year that we need to have more troops there. My visit confirmed every commander on the ground saying we, in fact, do need the two or three brigades that I've been recommending there. The fact that we're not gonna be able to solve the problem in Afghanistan unless we deal with the border situation with Pakistan, something that I talked about over a year ago.

What I'm encouraged by is that there's been a growing consensus on both sides of the aisle that, in fact, we need to put more effort into Afghanistan. And I think that, you know, my hope is that whoever the next president is, that we're gonna get that policy right because it is absolutely critical for us being successful long term.

Way to go, Katie! It's about time someone pressed him to actually say something. He was getting a little ticked off because she expected him to address the matter of the surge in a straightforward manner.

Clearly, Obama displayed poor judgment when he originally opposed the surge.

And now, he's displaying poor judgment again, by failing to admit his mistake.

The surge worked. Be a man and deal with it rather than fumble around and avoid the truth. Obama comes off as sleazy because he was being sleazy.

There's more that's disturbing about what Obama has to say.

Obama yaps about Afghanistan being the central front in the war on terror. He claims that he has spent more than a year pushing for more troops there. Obama wants more effort in Afghanistan.

OK.

Too bad Obama's past voting record cannot be reconciled with his latest rhetoric.

Tim Sumner writes:

Last year, Obama repeatedly said the surge in Iraq would not work. In addition, Power Line’s John Hinderaker points out Senator Obama’s current rhetoric about Afghanistan does not match his past voting record:

Worst of all, far from being committed to victory in Afghanistan, Obama voted to cut off all funding for all of our military efforts in Afghanistan on May 24, 2007 (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181), thereby seeking to bring about defeat there as well as in Iraq. His current effort to portray himself as a wolf in sheep’s clothing on Afghanistan is a complete fraud.

Obama was wrong on the surge.

He's being dishonest about his position on Afghanistan.

If you want straight talk, don't expect it from Obama.