Obama Confronts Reporter Over "Surge" Question (VIDEO)

At the Unity Conference in Chicago this morning, Barack Obama, for the 365,292nd time, was asked if he felt he needed to admit that the "Surge" worked, and by extension, that McCain is awesome and the Bush administration brilliant. Because the "Surge," a thin sliver of military tactic that lasted a few months and is now over, is the ONE THING about the ENTIRE IRAQ WAR that the press is trying to get their head around. (Exhibit A: Katie Couric)

Here's the question, as asked by Time magazine's Romesh Ratnesar:

RATNESAR: Senator, I want to ask you about a subject you've had to address repeatedly on this trip, which is the situation in Iraq and the question whether the surge has helped improve conditions there. During the primaries, you criticized Senator Clinton for failing to say that her vote authorizing the war was a mistake. Now we have commanders on the ground pretty much saying that the surge succeeded, and yet you've said that if you had to do it all over again, you still would have voted against the surge. We're not going to ask you to change your position here.

OBAMA: You're not going to ask me, but go ahead.

RATNESAR: I would like to know whether you feel that after the last five years, haven't we learned that a commander in chief needs to be willing to acknowledge mistakes or errors in judgment when circumstances change?

So Obama should admit the "surge" has worked because the commanders on the ground say so? The funny thing about those commanders on the ground -- the Bush administration sure had to fire or otherwise hound out of their jobs a WHOLE LOT OF COMMANDERS before we were left with the ones who deploy nothing more than SURGE LOGIC (TM) and knee-jerk reactions whenever they are asked to summarize the strategic situation in Iraq.

And that's the irony of SURGE LOGIC - it actually thrives so long as the conditions include the commander-in-chief never being willing to acknowledge mistakes when circumstances change.

Anyway, Obama's response was this:

You know, I have to say, it is fascinating to me the to hear you guys reemphasize this over and over again. I have not heard yet somebody ask John McCain whether his vote to go into Iraq was a mistake. i haven't, during the entire week that we were having this conversation. And so the question is, what are the strategic judgments that have to be made in order to make America safe? I strongly believe that going into Iraq was a disaster, strategically. It distracted us from finishing the job in Afghanistan. I have acknowledged, repeatedly, in every one of these interviews that the fact that we put more troops in there helped to quell the violence. i've been saying that all week. The question is whether or not my position in suggesting that we need to begin a phased withdrawal, we should have begun it earlier, whether that position that I took was a mistake, and I do not believe it was, because I continue to believe that the only way for us to stabilize the situation in Iraq -- I believed it then, and I believe it now -- is for the parties to arrive at a set of political accommodations.

Story continues below

advertisement

Actually, Obama's wrong about one of his contentions: McCain was asked once about whether it was a mistake to go into Iraq. Wolf Blitzer questioned him about it on Friday. Watch SURGE LOGIC in action:

BLITZER: But he says that when it comes to judgment, back in 2002 and 2003, early 2003, before the war, he made the right call in opposing the war to begin with, and he says you blundered, you made the wrong call in supporting going to war against Saddam Hussein.

MCCAIN: I would be more than happy to go through all of that again, and historians will. The fact is that Saddam Hussein was bent on the development of weapons of mass destruction, and I'll be glad to discuss that.

The fact is, what did we do at a critical time when we were about to lose the war? We were losing the war.

Senator Obama wanted to get out, I wanted the surge, which was not popular. The surge works. And now what do we do in the future? Do we continue on the path to victory -- and we've succeeded -- or do we set a time for withdrawal and jeopardize and possibly reverse all the gains that we have made? That's the question on the minds of the American people today.

See what I mean? Surge! What it is good for? Avoiding questions of judgment, that's what. Dodging inquiries about the way circumstances have changed. Hewing to the party line long after reality has trumped it.

And like an addict in the throes of meth psychosis, Surge Logic allows for reality to be interpreted in any nonsensical way imaginable. That's what allows McCain to stand in front of the world today and tell us that we were, in fact, greeted as liberators in Iraq. Obama needs to keep on fighting back against Surge Logic, and continue pressing hard for an intervention.

UPDATE: Over at TNR, Noam Scheiber has positive reviews for Obama's answer on the "surge" during his Meet the Press appearance this morning.

Comments

[Johnniedog]

In order to believe John McCain when he says "We are now winning" you have to believe that, up to now, we were losing. Has anyone ever heard anything, from any official, about the U.S. losing? All of the news out of the White House, the Pentagon, all of the major news agencys, and the Journalists has been positive and told us we were winning every battle and gaining ground at every turn of the War. Someone should ask McCain about why he says our troops were losing until the Surge.

Further, the Republicans would have you believe that the success of the Surge was the addition of 30,00 troops. The real truth of success in quelling the violence in Iraq is due to two other factors, not related to more Boots on the ground. First, the PAY FOR PEACE tactic caught on like wild-fire. We are paying the Iraqi tribal leaders and insurgents a monthly paycheck to live a good life if they lay down their guns and stop killing us. Second, the Iraqi leadership knows that the Democrats are going to win in the next election and they know we are going to take our troops out of Iraq. This reality leaves them no choice but to bust a move and get their political house in order.

We need to start spreading the truth about these things and stop the Republicans from getting away with their lies. Send this to everyone you know.

[ASM]

Bravo! I can see why John McCain is so anxious to have everyone concede that the surge worked and that he was right -- that way he would be 1 for 10 on judgement instead of 0 for 10. His judgement blew it when he pushed for the war, voted for it, said we would be greeted as liberators, said we would win it easily, said the oil would pay for the war, etc. Maybe I'm being kind -- we could all name more than 10 mis-judgements.

[tiger2471]

It is very funny how the Republicans are thumping their chests over the 'SURGE', meanwhile we are hurting in Afghanistan and need more troops, like another 5 BRIGADES. Maliki wants the US out of Iraq and he supports Barack Obama's plan to withdraw in a 16 month timeframe, but NO John McCain and GW will not leave because THEY KNOW what's best for the Iraqi people. It's pretty ridiculous considering John McCain said last year that if the Iraqi Gov't wanted the US out they would leave, but now things have changed. Unbelievable! All about the surge working but the choice to go to war was the most stupid decision since Vietnam. Meanwhile Osama Bin Laden continues to make videos.

[Schmice]

The "surge" was a term coined in order to avoid the true word: ESCALATION. If escalation had been used, how many Americans would have been behind the tactic. There are still more troops in Iraq now than before the escalation, notwithstanding McCain's asserting that the opposite is true

[Tags]

McCain probably still thinks margarine is good for him.

[Petruk]

Surge = Lipstick on a pig.

Please quote me.

[TheTruth74]

"The Surge" just becaues s*it don't smell as bad as before don't mean it is no longer s*it

[RaWash]

what's a s*it?

[hu.man]

What Obama should say is that the surge is giving us "the illusion of success" in that it affects the immediate security situation on the ground positively without dealing with the root cause of the violence. Surge is designed to give us a window to achieve political reconciliation among disparate factions within Iraq. This however is not taking place as effectively as it should because the Bush administration has been sorely lacking in pursuing diplomacy.

So yes, surge is good, it is successful but only in the short term. In the long run, we need someone like Obama who underscores the diplomatic approach as opposed to McCain who lacks fundamental understanding of what is taking place in that theater (as demonstrated by frequent gaffes about the situation there) and only relies on the military to bring peace and long term stability.

I also believe it is a counterproductive for Obama to dwell on the Iraq war being a mistake unless the merits of the starting the war is being discussed. No use crying over spilled milk. What do we do now? I am completely sold on Obama versus McCain. I do believe some may find the type of answers he gave in this interview as being defensive which may be interpreted as being not a flexible leader as the reporter pointed out. It doesn't work in Obama's favor, I believe.

[Quiniela]

I supported the war, when we were fighting Afghanistan and going after Bin Ladin. I wished at the time that Bush wasn't leading the effort. When we moved into Iraq, diverting attention from Al Queda, I didn't need to read the reports to know that it was a blunder. Those of us who voiced our opposition to the war were called cowardly, unpatriotic and weak. My Grandfather, who passed away this year was a first sergeant in Korea and Vietnam. He was a recipient of the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and numerous other awards and medals. He was among those who crossed the 38th parallel into North Korea to be driven back by the Chinese. He was proud of his service until the day he died, but he didn't support this war.

Our troops should not have been sent into Iraq, first and foremost. They should not have been sent in without adequate numbers to do the job that was asked of them. They have showed incredible strength and determination against the odds, and will always have my support. They deserve a Commander in Chief who not only looks at the short term, but one who sees the bigger picture for our success. Obama is the clear choice.

Bin Ladin is probably off in Amer, Somalia now. India is being attacked. Turkey is being attacked. Afghanistan is worse that it ever was. Wake up before it's too late!

[olgraydawg]

Where are we getting the money to pay off every joe, john and james in Iraq now? China, Japan? When do we get to build schools for our kids. We've borrowed and put our kids in debt and the profiteers have become rich and moved to Dubai. They've stolen and robbed us blind and people can't wait to try to vote the lying, murderous theives back in the white house for more of it. What in the F##k could be wrong with people. How many of them don't have a neighbor who's lost out on the dream. Can they not connect the dots to the rich b@#$%^!s or is it enough to enrich them even further as long as they provide someone whom they can consider themselves better than.

[LightningJoe]

America is living in an altered reality (also known as a dream), in which the terms are set by what a person wants, rather than by demonstrated fact. CBS rewrites reality to suit themselves, by mixing and matching McCain's deluded Surge-Worship into a less-crazy-sounding response, but in fact such alteration of fact has been happening routinely for years -- nay, decades. It's just now becoming more blatant and conscience-free -- now that it's become apparent to our for-profit media that the American Potato Public isn't about to contradict the television god.

Propaganda is simple, as long as you remember the core principles: first tell your audience that you're their best friend ("Fair and Balanced"), and then tell them who the "real" enemy is (anyone who wants accountability on the top, and a fair shake on the bottom). Once that message sinks in, you can lie your head off, about what a sheep-f##cker your chosen foil is, and none of your audience calls bullshit. Every time they hear that Liberals are elitists (and Rupert Murdock isn't ????) they nod their heads in sleepy "outrage."

Americans' self-willed ignorance on political issues greatly aids the process of misinforming the public, because the media audience by-and-large can't say why a presented "fact" is wrong. They only know enough about the personalities and issues to feel smart when they ever-and-again hear their own media-nurtured prejudices echoed back again as "fact."

------
Kill your tv.

[research]

The surge is a Failure!

"Violence is down"?

Then why are Iraqi deaths worse then before the surge?

All the surge did was kill a bunch more Iraqis and increase the rate at which Iraqi are dying.

US military deaths were higher this May than in any previous year's May. Higher then 22 previous months.

"our" democrats are going along with the BushCo Fox noise talk point.

Why?

[DarthVector]

Here's a simple introduction to why Surge Logic™ is flawed.

Let's assume you are a complete idiot sitting at home in Crawford, worried about two guys who have been prowling your yard, like potential home invaders. You know they stole your ride-on mower last week.

So, let's suppose you grab a handy bucket of gasoline (just for an example - but so ironic, really). You pour it over yourself, and set yourself on fire. Why? Because that might just scare them off.

Now you run around the house on fire for a few moments, flapping your arms. Your house begins to burn down.

Finally, feeling the heat, you realize this is not working. You find a big rug to stop-drop-roll in, and begin to put the fire out.

That's your surge in action. No one would say that stop-drop-roll was a stupid idea in this case. Sure, it put out the fire that was covering you. And burning down the house is a sure fire (ha!) way to prevent home invasion.

But Surge Logic™ also dictates that this success of stop-drop-roll means that setting yourself on fire was a smart and justified act.

Of course, you are now homeless, and have third degree burns to over 80% of your body. As you go to intensive care, the last stop before your nomination for a Darwin Award, let me remind you:

DON'T POUR GASOLINE ON YOURSELF AND STRIKE A MATCH IN THE FIRST PLACE, IDIOT!

[blaqntelligence]

After picking myself up off the floor laughing.....First of all, because this is a dead on description of the republican mindset.....I sobered up pretty fast because your analogy is exactly what mccain is selling and frightening numbers of people just don't seem to get the wisdom of your last sentence.....
"DON'T POUR GASOLINE ON YOURSELF AND STRIKE A MATCH IN THE FIRST PLACE, IDIOT!"

[tonyoppenheim]

You gotta love Barack for the way he handled that question.

Sing along with us...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pid-DxRSs84

Thanks!

[Chrisle]

If McCain thinks the surge was so successful and as he says we need more troops in Afghanistan should it be a major plank of his policy to succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan to reintroduce the draft?

[DarthVector]

Here's a simple introduction to why Surge Logic�� is flawed.

Let's assume you are a complete idiot sitting at home in Crawford, worried about two guys who have been prowling your yard, like potential home invaders. You know they stole your ride-on mower last week.

So, let's suppose you grab a handy bucket of gasoline (just for an example - but so ironic, really). You pour it over yourself, and set yourself on fire. Why? Because that might just scare them off.

Now you run around the house on fire for a few moments, flapping your arms. Your house begins to burn down.

Finally, feeling the heat, you realize this is not working. You find a big rug to stop-drop-roll in, and begin to put the fire out.

That's your surge in action. No one would say that stop-drop-roll was a stupid idea in this case. Sure, it put out the fire that was covering you. And burning down the house is a sure fire (ha!) way to prevent home invasion.

But Surge Logic�� also dictates that this success of stop-drop-roll means that setting yourself on fire was a smart and justified act.

Of course, you are now homeless, and have third degree burns to over 80% of your body. As you go to intensive care, the last stop before your nomination for a Darwin Award, let me remind you:

DON'T POUR GASOLINE ON YOURSELF AND STRIKE A MATCH IN THE FIRST PLACE, IDIOT!

[zull2]

Just because Obama said he hadn't heard it, didn't mean that he had been informed of McCain being asked whether or not he felt he was wrong to go into Iraq. Obama's been traveling all over the place the last week and a half, he's probably bound to miss one or two news shows.

That said, this is a fine reason why Obama would do well to have Howard Dean on the ticket. Notice how long his reply was to that reporter...Barack goes out of his way to be nonconfrontational, which is why the title of this is misleading. Dean, on the other hand, has an amazing talent for cutting through a question and providing a succinct, right to the point answer that slams the door home for the majority of people who can't get through a more rambling reply. It's too bad Howard Dean isn't one of the top choices for VP right now...he's better than everyone HuffPo listed.

[ibsteve2u]

Did somebody in the MSM already ask McCain - or better yet, Petraeus, since we're far more likely to either get a straight answer or to be able to detect if he is lying - what Iraq would be like today if the Sunni and the al-Sadr/Mahdi Army had not decided to play ball?

Regardless of the surge?

I'm sure I just missed it - the media (like Katie Couric) is always fair...

[Alethea]

Good point. Who has been more successful at quelling the violence: 30,000 additional troops or one man named Moqtata al Sadr - the leader of the Mahdi Army who keeps calling a cease fire?

Hard to tell, but I'm fairly certain that if the Mahdi Army hadn't stopped fighting, those 30K troops would have had a much harder time accomplishing anything.

[BCubedReg]

Absolutely.

[blaqntelligence]

Doesn't Moqtada al Sadr also support, I know nice word, our leaving Iraq or facing down his army ordered to destroy American troops?