Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is the thing I do not understand not only about him or politicians, but many people in general (ok, mostly politicians).
Why just not admitt he was wrong? I would have a lot more respect for Obama if he would admitt he called the wrong shot instead of sitting their trying to twist words and try to make it look like he did the right thing.
He should just say he was wrong, give a bravo to McCain and go on.
I can't beleive I just sort of stood up for Obama!
This is the thing I do not understand not only about him or politicians, but many people in general (ok, mostly politicians).
Why just not admitt he was wrong? I would have a lot more respect for Obama if he would admitt he called the wrong shot instead of sitting their trying to twist words and try to make it look like he did the right thing.
He should just say he was wrong, give a bravo to McCain and go on.
I can't beleive I just sort of stood up for Obama!
Sen. Obama: Iraq withdrawal should begin in 2007 - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/20/obama.iraq/index.html - broken link)
Read for youself what Obama said in 2006 and how it is portrayed today. Notice the increased number of casualties and his LINKAGE back then to Afghanistan. The surge has worked at this point but what is the continuing economic cost and damage to the economy still being caused. Those are part of a bigger picture other then just the surge. Some people see things in a more global/Macro big picture then others. The independent reader needs to look at their linkage of events and form their own opinion of what constitutes success and failure. Clearly many posters here see it in context that favors Senator McCain and others don't.
"I don't know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened."
I suppose you all have learned this already, but Katie Couric and the sad remnant of CNS News "left credibility on the editing room floor" last night. This is extremely serious business and Im sure they'll be called to account for it.
Slanting the visual language of the Katie Couric piece wasn't enough to make McCain look "good" - they actually had to EDIT his section to hide his ignorance of the facts of the Anbar Awakening timeline. Lucky for McCain CBS employs someone who actually knows the facts!
"Here's Couric's question:
Couric: Senator McCain, Senator Obama says, while the increased number of US troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?
Here's what McCain actually said:
McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is as-- such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlan[d] was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening.
Turns out, this statement is just not true. The Anbar Awakening actually began in August of 2006--months before the world was graced with the term surge. Once again John McCain is trying to make an argument based on something completely and demonstrably false.
So what did CBS and Katie Couric decide to show the American people instead for the answer to this question?
McCain: Senator Obama has indicated by his failure to acknowledge the success of the surge that he would rather lose a war than lose a campaign.
That's right. They replaced "foreign policy expert" McCain's bungling facts about Iraq (again) with a hallow talking point answer he actually gave to another question.
This will make it onto the dinosaur news today if it hasn't already.
The surge - You need to understand that a new strategy McCain's people have decided to go with is to convince you all that the 2007 surge was the key element necessary to bring about the current hesitation in violence (which they all agree, from Petraeus on down, is tentative at best). It was not, by a long shot, and even McCain said so, back in January 2007, contrary to the new story they've taught him to say: "I really believe that there's a strong possibility that you may see a very substantial change in Anbar province due to this new changes in our relationships with the sheiks in the region."
But that's the simpleminded new party line that's going to be stuffed down your throats. As long as it works. There's already another thread on here claiming that McCain "pushed the administration to change directions in Iraq." See, it's working!
With the sound turned down, watch that piece and observe the not-very-subtle leading visual language. You fell for it, they knew you would, and they knew that you would respond just as you did. (On the negative side, now you all can no longer pretend to include CBS Evening News among the liberal MSM )
Create as simple a message as you can, factual or not doesn't matter, and hammer it home. Use words like "victory," "success," "must." (You'll be hearing the slogan "[Obama would] rather lose a war than lose a campaign" a lot more, too. For how long? For as long as it works.) Edit the truth when you have to, as long as the approved message is conveyed. It worked before and it'll work again and it'll keep working, as long as Americans have televisions.
He did stand by his guns that he opposed the surge. You got that part right
He did admit the surge worked. You missed that part.
He said that he would have used the money spent on the surge in Afganistan or domestically. You failed to mention that part.
He said he would have sought a diplomatic solution in to stop the violence BUT he didn't know if it would have worked. Again you didn't mention that.
Katie didn't fail. Obama did! His answer is that he would have gambled with the lives of US soldiers at the negotiating table with Iraq. While Obama negotiated countless lives could have been lost in sucide bomb attacks.
IRRESPONSIBLE!!!! ______________ The O-Bomb, Making Bush look brighter every day!
Quote:
Originally Posted by tluv00
Wow......I mean seriously.....look at all of those grammatical errors. Who are you to be judging someone who does not have the opportunity to spell check or audit his answer, yet you type what looks like a 2nd graders answer.
So based on the fact that Obama stuttered when on the spot and stammered when asked questions on national television he was not prepared for we are writing him off? John Mccain has done the exact same thing in regards to on the spot answers and mistakes in regards to geography, names of countries etc. Let's try finding faults in the candidates that they have separate from one another as opposed to matching one.
EXCUUUUSE ME!! Please show me the error of my grammatic ways and WTF does that have to do with anything we are discussing?
...and please show me where I said anything in this tread about Obama stuttering.
This thread is about Obama's interview with Katie Couric
NOT John McCain and/or anything he has said or done
Obama's answer is that he would have gambled with the lives of US soldiers at the negotiating table with Iraq. While Obama negotiated countless lives could have been lost in sucide bomb attacks.
Obama thinks a lot of his ability to talk his way out of peril.
He says he wants to talk to our enemies. That sounds good but it usually doesn't work.
You and I know that some people talk out of one side of their mouth and do the exact opposite. The same thing can be said about world leaders. History teaches that.
I'm glad the surge worked. Violence is down in Iraq.
Think about it: If Obama were president and there was no surge---Obama would be sitting at the negotiating table negotiating while American soldiers and Iraqui citizens were being killed in sucicide attacks and by roadside bombs.
_____________________
Isn't it reassuring to go to bed every night knowing that all of our problems and that the problems of the world all boil down to the surge and the success or failure of it all. Life looks bright and the future is full of prosperity and hope because of the surge.
Maybe John "Surge" McSurge should come up with slogans to reflect the importance of his campaign issue.
"Surge we can believe in"
"Where's the surge?"
"A surge in every pot"
"Are you better off than you were four surges ago?"
I suppose you all have learned this already, but Katie Couric and the sad remnant of CNS News "left credibility on the editing room floor" last night. This is extremely serious business and Im sure they'll be called to account for it.
Slanting the visual language of the Katie Couric piece wasn't enough to make McCain look "good" - they actually had to EDIT his section to hide his ignorance of the facts of the Anbar Awakening timeline. Lucky for McCain CBS employs someone who actually knows the facts!
"Here's Couric's question:
Couric: Senator McCain, Senator Obama says, while the increased number of US troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?
Here's what McCain actually said:
McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is as-- such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlan[d] was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening.
Turns out, this statement is just not true. The Anbar Awakening actually began in August of 2006--months before the world was graced with the term surge. Once again John McCain is trying to make an argument based on something completely and demonstrably false.
So what did CBS and Katie Couric decide to show the American people instead for the answer to this question?
McCain: Senator Obama has indicated by his failure to acknowledge the success of the surge that he would rather lose a war than lose a campaign.
That's right. They replaced "foreign policy expert" McCain's bungling facts about Iraq (again) with a hallow talking point answer he actually gave to another question.
This will make it onto the dinosaur news today if it hasn't already.
The surge - You need to understand that a new strategy McCain's people have decided to go with is to convince you all that the 2007 surge was the key element necessary to bring about the current hesitation in violence (which they all agree, from Petraeus on down, is tentative at best). It was not, by a long shot, and even McCain said so, back in January 2007, contrary to the new story they've taught him to say: "I really believe that there's a strong possibility that you may see a very substantial change in Anbar province due to this new changes in our relationships with the sheiks in the region."
But that's the simpleminded new party line that's going to be stuffed down your throats. As long as it works. There's already another thread on here claiming that McCain "pushed the administration to change directions in Iraq." See, it's working!
With the sound turned down, watch that piece and observe the not-very-subtle leading visual language. You fell for it, they knew you would, and they knew that you would respond just as you did. (On the negative side, now you all can no longer pretend to include CBS Evening News among the liberal MSM )
Create as simple a message as you can, factual or not doesn't matter, and hammer it home. Use words like "victory," "success," "must." (You'll be hearing the slogan "[Obama would] rather lose a war than lose a campaign" a lot more, too. For how long? For as long as it works.) Edit the truth when you have to, as long as the approved message is conveyed. It worked before and it'll work again and it'll keep working, as long as Americans have televisions.
The network showed viewers Couric’s question in full, but instead of airing McCain’s actual response — the one that showed McCain getting the basics of the surge backwards — CBS took a different answer to a different question and pasted it into the broadcast, leaving viewers with the impression that it was McCain’s actual response to Couric’s inquiry. Someone needs to lose their job over this.
It’s curious, to put it mildly, on multiple levels.
Why would CBS News cover-up arguably the biggest candidate error of the entire presidential campaign?
Why would CBS News mix-and-match McCain’s responses to make him appear less incompetent?
Why would CBS News broadcast a question but not the answer to the question?
Why would CBS News post the entire actual interview online, making it easy for us to see their mischief?
Why would CBS News deliberately take the most newsworthy element of the interview, and leave it on the editing room floor?
Why didn’t Katie Couric hear McCain’s ridiculous answer, and ask a follow-up question seeking clarification?
On balance, McCain’s striking ignorance is clearly more important than CBS News’ journalistic malpractice. But it’s nevertheless hard to know what the network was thinking.
My only disappointment with this is that the author doesn't point out the gross bias of the piece's visual style.
Sen. Obama: Iraq withdrawal should begin in 2007 - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/20/obama.iraq/index.html - broken link)
Read for youself what Obama said in 2006 and how it is portrayed today. Notice the increased number of casualties and his LINKAGE back then to Afghanistan. The surge has worked at this point but what is the continuing economic cost and damage to the economy still being caused. Those are part of a bigger picture other then just the surge. Some people see things in a more global/Macro big picture then others. The independent reader needs to look at their linkage of events and form their own opinion of what constitutes success and failure. Clearly many posters here see it in context that favors Senator McCain and others don't.
He said that he agreed the surge has been successful in reducing casulties and potentially moving things forward in Iraq. He also said that he wouldn't assume other alternatives wouldn't have had similar or alternative benefits.
Typical Obama answer, I agree it was beneficial but can't say other things wouldn't have worked too.
You can tell he hasn't had much experience with actually making (and having to live with) significant decisions.
EXCUUUUSE ME!! Please show me the error of my grammatic ways and WTF does that have to do with anything we are discussing?
Uh.....if you read what I posted it was to Bentlebee and not you....it's plainly shown in the quote box, that is unless you choose to post under two names and if that is the case that's pretty sad but I doubt that you do that (no sarcasm intended).
People are questioning Obama's ability to speak in that specific situation where he has no preparation for her specific questions yet he is expected to react perfectly at the drop of a dime. Bentlebee has the ability to proofread, spell check etc yet obviously did not, but wants to criticize. My point is if you Obama bashers are going to pick someone to cast stones.....pick better.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"I don't know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened."
)
