AMMAN, Jordan, July 22, 2008
Obama: Surge Doesn't Meet Long-Term Goals
In An Exclusive Interview With Katie Couric, Illinois Senator Defends Position On Troop Buildup
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Eye To Eye: Barack Obama
"Only On The Web": In an exclusive "CBS Evening News" interview, Katie Couric speaks with Barack Obama about his foreign policy objectives and his position on the war in Iraq.
-
Video
Obama's Media Blitz
Forty journalists paid $20,000 each to fly with Barack Obama during his tour of the Mideast. Meanwhile, John McCain was met by two journalists after arriving in New Hampshire. Katie Couric reports.
-
Video
Eye To Eye: McCain On Mideast
John McCain talks about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan and sharply criticizes Barack Obama's understanding of the war on the terror. McCain also addresses criticism of favoritism in the media.
-
Photo
Sen. Barack Obama exclusively speaks with Katie Couric in Amman, Jordan. (CBS)
-
Photo Essay
Obama in the Mideast
Democratic presidential hopeful holds talks in Iraq, Afghanistan
-
Photo Essay
Barack Obama
A look at the life and meteoric rise of the president-elect.
Click here to read the full McCain interview.Katie Couric: Sen. Obama, first of all, you have not been to Iraq since 2006. What did you learn on your recent visit that surprised you? Or what was new?
Barack Obama: Well, there's no doubt the scary situation's improved. And it was very encouraging to see that markets are reopening; that in places like Anbar Province you have seen a complete reversal in terms of the attitude of Sunni tribesmen towards American forces there. That I think is a terrific momentum builder. And we've gotta keep on making sure that we're making progress on those fronts. What hadn't changed was there's still enormous suspicion between the Sunni and the Shii'a. And until I think that gets resolved and the central government is able to bring in Sunnis and give them confidence that their voices are heard, that their interests are met, that their constituencies are benefiting from oil revenues. Other steps that the government may be taking to improve economic opportunity, I think you're still gonna have a fragile situation there.
Couric: ... Prime Minister Maliki on the same page when it comes to a troop withdrawal by 2010. Why do you believe that the Iraqi security forces, which have taken so long to get up to speed, will be equipped to protect the country at that point?
Obama: Well, keep in mind that, and I can't speak for Prime Minister Maliki now, but under my proposal, you'd still have U.S. forces with a capable counterterrorism operation in the region. You would still be training Iraqi security forces. We'd still be providing logistical support. We would still provide protection for our diplomatic corps and other civilians as well as our forces on the ground.
So we would still have the capacity to help promote effective actions by the Iraqi security forces. And, in fact, we're already starting to see more and more of those forces take the lead in actions where we're playing more of an advisory role. The key is for us to not inhibit the Iraqis from taking that kind of responsibility on.
Couric: You talk about a residual force remaining in Iraq, but you've been hesitant to really give a number to people. You haven't been specific, though some of your advisors have said it could be tens of thousands of troops. Why can't you be more specific as to what you envision?
Obama: Now, keep in mind that when I talk about timetables, people say that's too specific, with respect to residual force, maybe not specific enough. I think this is an example of a tactical issue. How do you execute a mission that requires commanders on the ground to make that decision? My job as commander-in-chief would be to indicate to them here's our goal, here are the missions that we need to carry out. Now, you tell me what it is that we need in terms of boots on the ground, in terms of equipment, in terms of other capabilities that are gonna be required. The overarching strategy is not something that I can deflect to the general. That's something that I have to make a decision at of, if I am president of the United States.
Couric: Having said that, if General Petraeus or the chairman of the joint chiefs, Admiral Mullen, say to you, "Hey, President Obama "
Obama: Right.
Couric: if that comes to pass, "you cannot take out the final complement of combat troops. You need them in the theater," you would say?
Obama: I will always listen to the commanders on the ground. And I will make an assessment based on the facts at that time. As I've said before I am not interested in a false choice between either perfect inflexibility in which the next 16 months or the next two years I ignore anything that's happening in Iraq. Or, alternatively, that I just have an open-ended, indefinite occupation of Iraq in which we're not putting any pressure on the Iraqis to stand up and take this burden on. What I'm gonna do is to set a vision of where we need to go, a clear and specific timeframe within which we're gonna pull our combat forces out.
But I am gonna continue to listen to the commanders on the ground as well as others who are gonna be working on diplomatic front, are gonna be dealing with the economy of Iraq, all of which are gonna contribute to the safety and security of the Iraqi people.Watch the CBS Evening News piece on the candidates' vision for Iraq.
Couric: And base your decision still on conditions on the ground as well?
Obama: Well, as I said before I would not be doing my job if I'm not paying attention to the facts.
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.
Couric: You reportedly chaff when your foreign policy expertise is questioned. If foreign policy is not your weakest area of expertise, what is?
Obama: Well, you know, I the last time I was asked a question what my biggest weakness was, I said
Couric: You were disorganized.
Obama: I was disorganized. This ended up becoming a big political issue. You see we need somebody who's organized in the White House. So, you know, I
Couric: But what area do you feel least comfortable with?
Obama: Well, you know I think that there are so many issues in which I am not an expert but require you to be an expert. That the most important job that I will have as president is choosing excellent people to help to shape policy and provide me with a clear set of decisions. So I'll give you a very clear example.
I know quite a bit about healthcare, from a 4,000 to 40,000-foot level. But I'm not a doctor. I'm not a biochemist. You know, if you ask me about the human genome, I can vaguely describe it to you, but I don't know all the possibilities and potentials. So when I think about what I have to do as a president, my job is to be smart enough to choose really smart people, in fact, not to be intimidated by having people who are smarter than me, around me to give me, sound advice, and then be able to make those decisions.
But when it comes to foreign you know, I feel confident in my ability to apply good judgment to a broad set of problems that are out there. It doesn't mean that I'm gonna be an expert on everything. It means that I'm still gonna be consulting with people who have specialized in a particular area or particular region. But I think that I have a good feel for the nature of the problems that we have, the fact that the globe has gotten smaller, that we are all interconnected but that we still have a whole host of ethnic divisions and rivalries that are people are still steeped in history.
We started talking about the issues here in the Middle East. Obviously those long-standing grievances are not gonna go away immediately. And that the United States, one of the things that we can provide is leadership based on sets of values and ideals that recognize the equality of people; recognize human rights; recognize the importance of opportunity for all.
I believe those are values that are applicable to a wide range of problems. And that's why I think it's so important for the U.S. to return to the kind of leadership by example that has made us not only powerful, but also influential around the world.
Couric: We have a lot more ground to cover. You're heading to Israel
Obama: Yes.
Couric: after Jordan. And according to a recent poll out of Jerusalem, Israeli Jews favor John McCain for President 43 to 20 percent, with one-third undecided. Why do you think that's the case?
Obama: Well, I think it I'm not as well known as John McCain. I think that's obviously a factor. And, you know, I think, understandably, Israelis are very interested in making sure that whoever takes the White House is absolutely committed to their security, regardless of other issues. And they know John McCain. He's been there. Despite the fact that my record is as strong as John McCain's on all the issues related to Israeli security, people just don't know me as well. That's part of the reason why we're gonna spend a day visiting there in discussions and hopefully give people confidence that I have a track record that will assure not only the people of Israel, but friends of Israel back home, that, in fact, Israel's security is paramount.
Couric: There is some speculation, there is skepticism there because they're concerned about your previously stated notion of having talks with Iranian leaders, that somehow that signals to them that you won't be tough enough to Iran.
Obama: Yeah.
Couric: What's your response to that?
Obama: Well, I think that I'm encouraged to see, for example, the Bush administration send an outstanding diplomat, [Undersecretary of State William] Burns, to participate in discussions with Iran. This is what I've been talking about for the last year and a half. There's a reason why, for example, North Korea, when we weren't talking, developed eight nuclear weapons. And when we started talking, we've now arrived at possibility where we could get those nuclear weapons, and those systems dismantled.
You know, engaging in tough diplomacy is not a sign of weakness; it's a sign of strength. When we engage in that kind of diplomacy, two things can happen. One, we get a breakthrough and the other side responds to the carrots and sticks that we're offering. Tough sanctions if they don't behave but opportunities for greater involvement, for example, in the international community if they do. That's one possibility.
The other possibility is they just reject it. You know, so far the Iranians have not accepted the kinds of talks that we need to deal with in terms of suspending their enrichment program. But the fact that we've tried to talk to them then strengthens our hand in the international community when we wanna get Russia or China to help apply the tough sanctions that are gonna be required to make Iranians know that we mean business.
Couric: If they reject negotiations, how likely do you think a preemptive military strike by Israel against Iran may be?
Obama: I will not hypothesize on that. I think Israel has a right to defend itself. But I will not speculate on the difficult judgment that they would have to make in a whole host of possible scenarios.
Couric: This is not a speculative question then. Was it appropriate, in your view, for Israel to take out that suspected Syrian nuclear site last year?
Obama: Yes. I think that there was sufficient evidence that they were developing a site using a nuclear or using a blueprint that was similar to the North Korean model. There was some concern as to what the rationale for that site would be. And, again, ultimately, I think these are decisions that the Israelis have to make. But, you know, the Israelis live in a very tough neighborhood where a lot of folks, publicly proclaim Israel as an enemy and then act on those proclamations.
And I think that you know it's important for me not to you know, engage in speculation on what steps they need to take. What I can do is to provide leadership so that the United States government hopefully doesn't get us into a position where those decisions are so difficult. That's why applying tough diplomacy, direct diplomacy, and tough sanctions where necessary is so important.
Couric: Two more questions. You said not too long ago that Jerusalem should remain undivided. And then you backtracked on that statement. Does that play into the argument that some believe that someone more experienced would not have made that kind of mistake?
Obama: Well if you look at what happened, there was no shift in policy or backtracking in policy. We just had phrased it poorly in the speech. That has happened and will happen to every politician. You're not always gonna hit your mark in terms of how you phrase your policies. But my policy hasn't changed, and it's been very consistent. It's the same policy that Bill Clinton has put forward, and that says that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel, that we shouldn't divide it by barbed wire, but that, ultimately that is a final status issue that has to be resolved between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
Couric: Finally, you'll be going to Germany and to France and Great Britain. And according to German press reports, as many as a million people may be gathering to hear your speech in Berlin. Do you worry at all, Sen. Obama, that this kind of crowd in Berlin may be slightly off-putting to the guy in Columbus, Ohio, who's just lost his job?
Obama: Yeah. Well, first of all, I am very doubtful that there will be a million people there. You know, I think we'll get a crowd if the weather's good. And the purpose of the speech is to remind both Americans and Europeans of this special transatlantic bond that has been built up since the end of World War II that has been so critical to the prosperity of all peoples. And I think the guy in Columbus, 'cause I talk to guys in Columbus, they're very interested in making sure that we are restoring respect in the world that that people feel good about America and part of my message is, is that both sides of the Atlantic are gonna have to do some hard work.
But it's work that must be done because the challenges that we face, whether it's climate change or making sure that we've got a economic system that works for everybody or we're dealing with issues like terrorism, those are issues that no one country can solve alone. And we've got to continue to nurture this wonderful relationship that has existed with former enemies. You know and that's why Berlin I think in particular is such a great site for that particular message.
Couric: Certainly symbolic.
Obama: Yeah.
Couric: Sen. Barack Obama. Senator, thank you.
Obama: Thank you so much. Appreciate it, Katie.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Video and Galleries from CBS Evening News
-
Video
Evening News Online, 07.10.09
-
Video
Hi-Tech Drones Aid Terror Hunt
-
Video
Confirming Sotomayor
- Latest in CBS Evening News
- Sotomayor's Big Day Nears
- U.S. Drones Have al Qaeda On the Run
- The Story Behind the Skating Babies
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 9
- next
See all 431 CommentsIn other words, you lied. This is exactly what we''re doing NOW! Training security forces, protecting our embassy, and providing logistical support.
And NOW that the UN mandate is running, just like Bush knew it would, he''s negotiating a timeline and a presence in Iraq to help keep it stable.
WHY IN THE HELL ARE YOU PROMOTING THIS AS SOME KIND OF NEW IDEA YOU COOKED UP??
And why did you lie to the stupid and vulnerable and say you would end the WAR, when the WAR was won in 2003, and we''ve been a supporting occupier since 2003?
The man doesn''t even KNOW that won the war over 5 years ago!
The only winners in this war are Cheney and Bushe''s business buddies. The military is a loser as well as the electorate and people of this great country. Bush and Cheney NEVER put this county ahead of their personal issues. NEVER.
Posted by RowdyWicca at 06:49 PM : Jul 22, 2008
The man wasn''t even privy to all intel before the war and he made the decision that it was the wrong thing to do.
It might have been the wrong thing to do, but how can you make a decision like that without knowing all the facts?
You can say the surge worked , but can you say with such empirical surety that Obama''s approach would not have worked. We can only speculate because only one scenario has been actualized . I would prefer Obama''s approach.
We need Mc Cain like we need another George W. Bush.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-3ROv_MsNs
Posted by AJMarine111 at 07:05 PM : Jul 22, 2008
You know IF you had went to the NCO school I did, you''d already know the Answer to that... a MARINE not knowing the answer to that is UNBELIEVABLE!! You NEVER EVER leave the Enemy alive on the battle field and start ANOTHER front! It''s classic Military and goes back who knows how long. Leaving that Enemy ALIVE, an ENEMY who Arrogantly had planes flown into Buildings INTENDING to kill thousands of your citizens is INSANE. Bush was ARROGANT, INCOMPETENT and CORRUPT. There''s no other way to look at it.
And the "surge" only appears to be working because we are giving money and arms to the Sunnis, who until recently were placing IEDS and shooting at U.S. soldiers. Arming your enemies and paying them a salary never works unless you plan on doing those for 100+ years like McCain wants to. Once we stop giving the Sunnis money, they will go right back to being insurgents against us, the Shias and anyone else. Wake up people, the Iraq fair is a colossal blunder that had no military/U.S. security relevancy and has only fanned the flames of the already existing civil war. We should never have been involved.
Still spinning the "Bush lied, people died" lie, huh? If it was a lie, than ALL the major intelligence organizations across the world were in on the same lie.
Seeing how such a coordinated effort could never happen, the simplest answer is that Bush did not lie.
AND, by LAW:
Created pursuant to S.Res. 400, 94th Congress: to oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government, and to submit to the Senate appropriate proposals for legislation and report to the Senate concerning such intelligence activities and programs. In carrying out this purpose, the Select Committee on Intelligence shall make every effort to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive AND LEGISLATIVE branches to make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation. It is further the purpose of this resolution to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.
For those of you that can''t understand politicalese:
This committee BY LAW is supposed to get all pertinent intelligence information. And, seeing that Congress HAS NOT impeached Bush for withholding intel, he DID NOT withhold intel.
Posted by TomFlint69 at 07:50 PM : Jul 22, 2008
I don''t see how ANYONE can say that having seen him during this trip. The guy has a firm grip on what NEEDS to be done. We as a people HAVE to come to grips with the FACT that the ENEMY is NOT in Iraq, never was. We had a leader who made a classic blunder the likes of which this nation has never seen. HE left the Guy who attacked us ALIVE AND started a War based on pure lies. There isn''t a radical on the planet who isn''t full well ready to fight us right now. IF we do NOT wake up NOW, it may well be to late the next time. Why people would listen to the same line from Republican''s is beyond me!!
Posted by MCVet at 07:50 PM : Jul 22, 2008
And you know for a fact that I was never in NCO school?
Answer to that... a MARINE not knowing the answer to that is UNBELIEVABLE!! You NEVER EVER leave the Enemy alive on the battle field and start ANOTHER front! It''''s classic Military and goes back who knows how long. Leaving that Enemy ALIVE, an ENEMY who Arrogantly had planes flown into Buildings INTENDING to kill thousands of your citizens is INSANE. Bush was ARROGANT, INCOMPETENT and CORRUPT. There''''s no other way to look at it.
This explains why Obama, not knowing all the facts, said Iraq was wrong?
Besides that, you can fight on more than one front at a time.
Still spinning the "Bush lied, people died" lie, huh?
Posted by DemWatcher at 07:54 PM : Jul 22, 2008
You have no idea of my views on the war.
But he is too scared to lose face among his disciples.....
Posted by MCVet at 07:50 PM : Jul 22, 2008
Would you really allow Barack Obama to drop the ball in Iraq, allowing terrorists to make their way back into the country, while he switches focus on Afghanistan?
Some kind of Marine you must have been...
Posted by DemWatcher at 07:54 PM : Jul 22, 2008
What in the WORLD are you smoking??? It has to be good...save me some!! ROFLMAO Look I sat right in front of my TV and LISTENED to the LOW LIFE LIE!! Why try to insult peoples intelligence at this point. Get a copy of the Speech the piece of human trash gave when he ORDERED those inspectors out of Iraq. LISTEN TO IT! HE stood there and told us and the World he COULD NOT allow those inspectors to continue because he had the "Smoking Gun" and he COULD NOT allow them to continue. HE LIED MAN!! HE no more had a "SMOKING GUN" than he has a soul! The man is a puppet of Cheney''s and he''s INCOMPETENT. Sieg Heil Bush
Besides that, you can fight on more than one front at a time.
Posted by AJMarine111 at 07:56 PM : Jul 22, 2008
Well of course it does?? THIS isn''t a states secret and if you weren''t willing to say or do whatever is necessary to keep Obama out of office YOU''D admit it. The thing is taught in EVERY Law School as well. ROFLMAO It''s called COMMON SENSE as well!! HE, Bush, thought the Taliban and Al Queda would act like a bunch of Red Necks on a Saturday Night that''s all.. HE was not just WRONG, he was DEAD WRONG!!
Posted by AJMarine111 at 07:57 PM : Jul 22, 2008
I have an idea that you, for some reason, do not want the senator from my state to become President. He has been right and continues to show great judgement during this tour. HE, after the failure of George Bush, deserves a chance.
Posted by MCVet at 08:02 PM : Jul 22, 2008
Why do you think that anyone will give Barack Obama the "chance" that they never afforded George Bush?
You will reap what you sow, MCVet.
Posted by MCVet at 08:01 PM : Jul 22, 2008
That''s it, I have never supported McCain or Obama and here you are rattling off more of your *** MC. You get on here everyday and try to browl beat and belittle people and act like you are king know it all. You rattle on and on, and now, most people don''t pay any attention to you.
All I said was "How can a person, anyone, make a decision without knowing all the facts".
Posted by AJMarine111 at 07:56 PM : Jul 22, 2008
At one time, I believe the premise was that our military could fight on up to 3 fronts at a time. However, that was based on traditional warfare scenarios. do you really believe that our military can currently hold up on multiple fronts in desert environments fighting terrorists and suicide bombers year after year? Understad that these groups have been fanatic militants for hundreds of years. Theya ren;t going away. Ever. Let me repeat. EVER. In addition, it is not just a question of how many fronts we can fight on, it is "how many fronts, for how long", particularly when the majority of Americans do not support the occupation.
Posted by AJMarine111 at 07:57 PM : Jul 22, 2008
I have an idea that you, for some reason, do not want the senator from my state to become President. He has been right and continues to show great judgement during this tour. HE, after the failure of George Bush, deserves a chance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by MCVet at 08:02 PM : Jul 22, 2008
+ report abuse
This has what to do with my views on the war?
Posted by MCVet at 07:47 PM : Jul 22, 2008"
You did not take my advice to actually EDUCATE YOURSELF on what fascism is, did you?
Fascism''s primary goals:
1. Limit or eliminated private ownership of guns.
We ALL know that the Democrats want the same thing.
2. Nationalize control of industry.
The Democrats are calling for government control of the oil industry.
3. Fascism is considered a ''religion'' of the State.
You already have your messiah in Obama.
4. "An extreme form of nationalism that plays on fears of communism and rejected individual freedom, liberal individualism, democracy, and limitations on the state."
Sounds EXACTLY like what the Democrats (and you people on this board) are saying.
So, as you can see, the TRUE fascists are the Democrats and YOU.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by OneAmerican- at 07:58 PM
So a "true marine" can not have an informed and personal opinion about the morality, wisdom or success of an illegal military effort? When did the commitment to follow a superiors orders and fight as directed for your country mean you had to shed all common sense and opinions?
I don''t trust this guy with all his crooked and shady and hateful associates. Birds of a feather.....
We are too PC to fight any war anymore, period. We should just say we give up and whoever wants to take us over "come on in".
Obama: Right.
Couric: %u2026if that comes to pass, "you cannot take out the final complement of combat troops. You need them in the theater," you would say?
Um, he doesn''t say "right". Listen as many times as you want.
I don''t think the media have figured out yet that we''re really getting tired of these little mind games and opinion manipulations through lies and misinformation. The only reason Obama stole Hillary''s spot is because he was a straight shooter about the majority of the lies and stealing that have been going on these last seven years. Now he''s reaching out to the war profiteers and their backers, along with the Israeli elitists. I''m not happy about it, but I know why he is doing it, you can''t make changes if you''re not elected, but I think he''s losing that fierce rallying behind him from the so many in this nation who were saying anything but the Republican crime ring and the corrupt representatives like Hillary(and I don''t just mean Iraq war profiteers and big oil).
We ALL know that the Democrats want the same thing.
2. Nationalize control of industry.
The Democrats are calling for government control of the oil industry.
3. Fascism is considered a ''''religion'''' of the State.
You already have your messiah in Obama.
4. "An extreme form of nationalism that plays on fears of communism and rejected individual freedom, liberal individualism, democracy, and limitations on the state."
Sounds EXACTLY like what the Democrats (and you people on this board) are saying.
So, as you can see, the TRUE fascists are the Democrats and YOU.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by DemWatcher at 08:07 PM
Actually, only 4 is stated correctly, and is exactly what Bush has been doing.
Fascism is not government control of industry. It is corporate control of government. Bush''s agenda.
Fascism is not a religion of the state. It uses religion to rally the people behind a leader. Bush again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by AJMarine111 at 08:10
I''m sorry. was Iraq trying to take us over? If so, you just completely changed my opinion about the occupation.
Posted by stratmaster2 at 08:14 PM : Jul 22, 2008
stratmaster, I''m sorry, I can''t bring myself to state for the thousands time my views on the war.
Lets just say, I think Saddam needed to go and you don''t and let it go at that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by AJMarine111 at 08:16
And Iran, N. korea, China, Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela all think Bush should go. But I don;t think you would defend their right to invade us.
Lets just say, I think Saddam needed to go and you don''''t and let it go at that.
Posted by AJMarine111 at 08:16 PM : Jul 22, 2008"
So I presume that means if some total stranger decided that any member of your family "needed to go", they are perfectly entitled to stroll into your house and kill them ?
It is because they can attract a significant audience and thus are losing money.
If they could get even a little more honest in their reporting they might get to keep their jobs.
Posted by AJMarine111
_________
Besides breaking international law, I think it sets a very dangerous precedent to invade a sovereign nation simply to dethrone a despot like Saddam Hussein.
Remember, the world watches America and follows her example... therefore, other countries might follow suit down the road which can only lead to further increasing international hostilities and armed conflict.
Posted by cbscrash07 at 08:21 PM : Jul 22, 2008"
Good thing it''s summer so you can take your socks and shoes off and use all your fingers and toes eh
Posted by miles1967 at 08:16 PM : Jul 22, 2008"
Looks like Georgie learned from his ole hero the Republican god Ronnie and ole General Dimwittedraeus learned from his fellow loud mouthed coward Oliver Hardy - er sorry Ollie North (pretty easy to mix up those 2 clueless incompetent oafs)
Posted by stratmaster2 at 08:20 PM : Jul 22, 2008
OK stratmaster, here goes.
We d-i-c-k-e-d around with Saddam for twelve years after the First Gulf War and he kept thumbing his nose at us. At some point, whether it is with people or countries, enough is enough and something must be done or else walk away and leave the person/country to do what they want. If we had left Saddam, would we still be doing the no-fly zone? Would we still be containing him? Would he and his sons still be trying to get WMD''s? Would Saddam still be threating Israel? Would we be containing Saddam for the rest of our lives?
If the rest of the world wants to invade us, it will be for them to decide what reasons they think justify it.
Obama is more interesting. He causes more page clicks and he sells more commercial time. The market is speaking. Are you a socialist or something?
Incidentally, McCain is the candidate who needs to feed at the public trough to get his hands on the socialized taxpayer funds he needs to keep running through the fall. Is he some kind of socialist or something?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Causeway_v at 08:26 PM : Jul 22, 2008
+ report abuse
Saddam was not a total stranger.
Maybe before your time.......
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 9
- next
See all 431 Comments