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

[Fez]

Let's go to the dictionary (American Heritage Dictionary, 1980, p. 1294) for a definition of "surge:" (1) To move in a billowing or swelling manner; to rise and heave over violently, as waves. (2) To roll or be tossed about on waves, as a boat. (3) To increase suddenly. (4) A violent rising and falling; a sudden onrush. (5) A sudden, transient increase in electrical current. Note the physics associated with the word "surge." It is sudden and transient, and the rising is accompanied by falling. So what we have here is a short-term situation that will fall almost as quickly as it rose. The best part of the "surge" has already happened, folks. The violence is again on the rise and the surge is falling back to original conditions. Sort of like an erection... 15 minutes of tumescence followed by hours of soft and flabby detumescence.

[dartagnan]

No problem -- after the surge subsides and violence returns to pre-surge levels the 'cons will tell us we need another surge because THE FIRST ONE WORKED SO WELL. LMAO!!

[Indyfromny]

Shouldn't it be illegal to pay off your enemies during a war, especially in an election year when the only thing your running on is how great the war is going?

[cobra7]

When is the question about payments to the Sunnis and Shias to stop fighting going to be addressed. Only way the surge worked was because of this fact. As of today, violence has started again...Does this mean we ran out of money?

[biglover]

Never in a Bush controlled media. Never

[Intruder]

Family entrusts husband to manage the family finances. Husband deceptively empties out 500 grand from the family savings account. Husband proceeds to blow it ALL on the craps tables over the course of a single Vegas weekend. Husband knows he has screwed up bigtime. Time to come clean to the wife and beg forgiveness, he thinks to himself. But wait, maybe there's another way, he thinks. Husband breaks the news to the wife, but presents a solution: he can win it back, he just needs that last 50 grand they have in the 401ks. Wife thinks that is a horrible idea. Husband takes the money and proceeds to turn the 50k into 250 grand. See??? the husband exclaims, I was right, if we'd listened to you, we'd be facing financial ruin right now. See how that works?

[truthbearer247]

It’s funny how success is defined in such ambiguous terms, conveniently injected to accommodate the Neo-con agenda. This whole surge debate reeks of complete absurdity. Beyond the partisan politics and talking points, reality renders the politically astute to ask certain questions. What might a democracy in an Islamic state like Iraq look like? Is there a high probability that Iraqi leadership will be dominated by Islamic fundamentalists similar to Lebanon or Palestine? Shouldn’t the ultimate measure of “success” in Iraq be based on political reconciliation? How will the Sunnis adapt to their reduced role in Government? Is civil war inevitable and shouldn’t we concentrate on securing Iraq from Iranian (Shiite) and Saudi (Sunni) influence? Dare we ponder the liberating power of education vs. violence in nation building? How can we prevent Iraq from becoming our Frankenstein? The question then becomes, why is the MSM so unwilling to engage in such conversations?

[CtJean]

Off thread - but I wanted to get this in here

August 4th is O's birthday (and mine)

He will be 47 - let's give him the biggest $$ day ever - I'm doubling my contribution

Some are suggesting that increments of 47 would be great

Please pass this on

[Paschablaster]

To CtJean: How about cutting him a check for ZERO:

- 0 = the amount of times he visited our wounded troops while in Germany?

- 0 = the amount of times he attended a Foreign Relations Committee Meeting (he's the chair) with OVERSIGHT ON AFGHANISTAN??

- 0 = the amount of times he's said NO to EXELON

- 0 = the amount of times he publicly denounced the sexism spewed at Clinton BEFORE she suspended her campaign?

- 0 = the amount of times he admitted that he's WRONG!

[chin075]

Lawd! Truthbearer, your post is way too intelligent and substantive. The press can only swallow small morsels that have been chewed and pre-digested for them by the Neocons, i.e. "Senator Obama, are you ready to admit you were wrong and that the Surge worked?"

[freecasey]

"John McCain infers that 20,000 troops went in and did what the other 140,000 failed to do. That is wrong. Today's improved conditions in Iraq are the result of the fine work of our men and women who have fought so bravely there, a brilliant tactical shift within the Sunni tribes developed by U.S. forces in Ramadi, and the Iraqi families tired of seeing their lives, dreams and their homeland destroyed by al-Qaida. And all these things were happening well before February of 2007."

[ProfessorDuh]

Hey, 57 people just got blown to bits and hundreds were maimed in Iraq suicide bombings. Better turn up the volume on that "Surge Is Working!" lie.

[HopeandChange]

How many died in L.A. today? Were any of them legal?

[BTJ46]

Dear misnomer -- "HopeandChange" indeed. I note from your profile that you are a long term troll here and I see that your 811 postings are filled with anger and contempt.
But I ask you to please have some decency. A single death, wherever it occurs, reduces us all and none should ever be used in a cheap calculus to make a indefensible political defense.

[SonnyBono]

And your point is?

1. The people that may or may not have died in Los Angeles were not there as the result of an illegal war or occupation.

2. Any deaths in LA did not cost the US $10 Billion dollars a month - money that could have been used for universal health care, roads, bridges, etc.

3. People that died in LA - other than natural causes - probably died as the result of guns - ah, the Second Amendment - the only part of the Bill of Rights that Bush and Cheney have left undamaged.

4. I have lived in the Los Angeles area for many years and the streets are much safer than Baghdad - at least I have never needed attack helicopter escort to go to the market.

[yesenia]

What's your point?Legal, illegal....??? Some people I tell you..

[Heavy]

Thanks for clarifying the fact that you feel you are better than others.

[biglover]

So what's your point you sorry excuse for a human being? It will however, be a good day when I read your obituary.

[SFkid]

Oh yeah, The SURGE seems to be working alright, although there are plenty of bombings, US and Iraqi deaths everyday. Lets not mention the billions of US dollars we pay iraqi militias not to kill Americans. So is that SURGE working, John? CNN? America?

[XME]

As always, I think he handled the question VERY well.

Clearly McCain has launched the typical "anything goes" attack campaign against Obama and has decided to forgo his promise to run a "respectful" campaign because it's all he has left. Repugs simply don't know how to run a clean campaign against an intellegent opponent...they just can't compete on the same level!

[schicklett3]

Senator Obama is right -on!
And, JOhn McCain, and the entire Republican Party that is endorsing this Iraq war and this SURGE nonsense, is wrong. Period.
McCain and his supporters can push Iraq down our throats until we choke, but, anyone that has half and brain knows it's not working, and that it was a mistake, and that we need to let the Iraq government take over. Period.
And, Senator Obama better start fighting back because John McCain and his favorite media people will stop at nothing to ensure a republican win.
Obama is right, and IMO, the best candidate for president this country has seen in decades.

[MrT3]

you mean the surge of money we continue to pay all sides to behave??

[DontSpinMeBro]

Major point that has gotten lost in the dust of time:

It could be argued that the "surge" was "necessary", ONLY because Bush/Rumsfeld fired Generals and other leaders because they asked for MORE troops in the very beginning.
So the "surge" is nothing but "making up for" the initial mistake of not enough troops in the first place.

[PhantomAviator]

..

It's AMAZING. Obama actually answered in a COHERANT manner. It's amazing to see a political LEADER speaking with a GRASP of the underlying concepts BEHIND the application of military strategy.

After seven years of "IT'S TRUE COS I BELIEVE IT'S TRUE", Obama is truly a SHOCK to the system.

He must have gone to a REALLY GOOD madrassa.

So it goes.

..

War = Peace, Freedom = Slavery, Ignorance = Strength

.

[mergina]

STOP TALKING ABOUT THIS MISERABLE SURGE ALREADY. Damn. Can't the media control the message and get these candidates on issues that really count? What is there to wonder about with that goddamn surge anway...Obama wins we start coming home, McCain wins we don't. The world is falling apart outside of these this excuse for Bush and Cheney's, and yes, now McCains buddies, to get filthy righ off of. THIS IS THE ONLY REASON THE WAR WAS WAGED ANYWAY....$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[nk007]

Here is the question for the corporate news media and Senator McCain: Did the United States invade Iraq in order to ensure that the "surge worked?" If not what were the strategic objectives for invading Iraq? Have those objectives been achieved? Surely, the "surge" can not be viewed as the sole strategic objective for invading Iraq. Secondly, you say that you are opposed to setting time tables for ending U.S. occupation of Iraq, does that mean that you will continue to send young men and women to risk their lives in Iraq for an indefinite time? Are you also prepared to be honest about what it is that we hope to accomplish, with no end in sight, by continuing to pour tax payers money, at the rate of 12 billions a month, for Iraq occupation? For the respected, learned, liberal, objective, professional, corporate media (MSM), who are supposedly favor Obama, how come you are not asking Sen. McCain these questions? The only question you have repeatedly asked Obama, over and over again, by ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, not to mention that "fair and balanced" FOX, is all about did "the surge" succeed? Obama is repeatedly asked to admit that it did. But my question, as a tax payer is: if the surge succeeded what the hell are we still doing in Iraq? Isn't time to bring our troops home and stop wasting billions of dollars that could be spent to benefit our people here at home?

[truthyguy]

I do not for a second become concerned when Obama is being interviewed by any of these celebrity-wanna-be reporters. Who do you think has the upper hand and is in control - someone who went to Harvard Law and was smart enough to be Editor-in-Chief of the law review, or some simpleton who was a journalism major at a mediocre school and whose preparation consists more of getting their hair just right than anything else preparatory to an interview?

Do you think McCain's supporters feel the same - or are they constantly concerned he will not remember facts and/or will lose his temper?

[Oilygarch]

Ever since the very beginning of Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL), the only significant surge we have experienced has been in the number of dead and maimed (mostly civilian, and of those, mostly women and children); oh, and a great surge in oil prices too.