News Obama to appear on Bill O'Reilly's The Factor this evening (FOX)

[chemisttree]

Obama to appear on Bill O'Reilly's "The Factor" this evening (FOX)

http://www.billoreilly.com/" ... if it is done on the night of McCain's nomination speech.

Brilliant! Excellent politics, Mr. Obama! This is sure to counteract some of the relentless pro-McCain coverage during RNC convention week. Bill's a pushover...

What could go wrong?

 

[seycyrus]

It is great politics. Considering the huge market that FOX commands, it is a wise move to get some exposure.

Hilary took advantage of it. It didn't hurt her did it?

 

[LightbulbSun]

There's that weasel Karl Rove.

 

[Nesiox]

Bill O'Reilly? Hmm, pretty nice move to take the attention away from McCain. Bill can be controversial and having Obama will make things all the more tense on the show.

 

[LightbulbSun]

There's too much irony in Fox News making a big deal about a supposed misleading title of a magazine cover.

 

[Cyrus]

I watched it. O'Reilly look like his normal jack-donkey self.

"JUST SAY IT. SAY YOU WERE WRONG. JUST SAY YOU WERE WRONG"...

Heee-haaa heee-haaaa...and the emmy goes to...oh, not you O'Reilly. NO not you either Hannity.

 

[devil-fire]

I don't know how anyone can watch through that guy's "interviews". Instead of trying to encourage the interviewee to offer an opinon on a topic, this interviewer states what he thinks the situation is and insists the interviewee agree to it.

 

[Cyrus]

I don't know how anyone can watch through that guy's "interviews". Instead of trying to encourage the interviewee to offer an opinon on a topic, this interviewer states what he thinks the situation is and insists the interviewee agree to it.

Hence why Bill O'Reilly is an a** -clown.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here's the first part of the interview.


Once again, Obama shines.

 

[Cyrus]

Here's the first part of the interview.


Once again, Obama shines.

I love how O'Tool says, huffing and puffing, " <rolleyes> all rightt, deplomacy mightttt work </rolleyes>"...


"but the surge worked, come onnnnnnnnnn, just say it...come onnnnnnnnnnn..."

What a buffoon.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I love how O'Tool says, huffing and puffing, " <rolleyes> all rightt, deplomacy mightttt work </rolleyes

...but why even bother? You can't wrap a flag around diplomacy.

I noticed a distinct void regarding timelines for withdrawal.

 

[seycyrus]

What a buffoon.

O'reiley and Obama engaged in a polite manner.

The success of the troop surge issue is a valid point. A point that many undecided voters are interested in. O'reiley did his job.

 

[Cyrus]

O'reiley and Obama engaged in a polite manner.

The success of the troop surge issue is a valid point. A point that many undecided voters are interested in. O'reiley did his job.

I never said it was not a valid point. Don't put words into my mouth.

I said O'Reiley is an idiot and an arrogant Jackass. He's a disgrace to reporting, and has no class.

 

[Cyrus]

...but why even bother? You can't wrap a flag around diplomacy.

I noticed a distinct void regarding timelines for withdrawal.

He's such a bad journalism that interview was NOT about Obama. It was about hearing O'Reily TELL obama what he thinks and obama sits there and listens.

I'll wait for Obama to go on a real program, like Charlie Rose.

 

[seycyrus]

I never said it was not a valid point. Don't put words into my mouth.

Don't put words in my mouth either. I never said YOU said.

My point was that it was a valid point and needed to brought up. O'reiley is doing his job.

I said O'Reiley is an idiot and an arrogant Jackass. He's a disgrace to reporting, and has no class.

Run away, lest I frighten you with my O'reiley challenge.

 

[seycyrus]

He's such a bad journalism that interview was NOT about Obama. It was about hearing O'Reily TELL obama what he thinks and obama sits there and listens.

Sorry, but it's not in Obama's character to just "sit there and listen".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The success of the troop surge issue is a valid point. A point that many undecided voters are interested in. O'reiley did his job.

If you throw enough troops at a problem then you can regain control - it is a foregone conclusion. The real question is: Has Iraq moved to stablize politically, or are they still taking vacations and fighting among themselves. Obama's position has always been that if we don't put pressure on the Iraqies to solve their own problems, they never will. So by the measure that he has always used, the success of the surge is not yet determined.

It is also a fact that the Sunni awakening played a large role in improving conditions in Iraq. This had nothing to do with the surge.

 

[seycyrus]

If you throw enough troops at a problem then you can regain control. The real question is: Has Iraq moved to stablize politically, or are they still taking vacations and fighting amoung themselves.

If you use the same criteria that we used about a year and a half ago, where it was decided that the surge was (at that time) not yet successful, vast progress has been made. Instead of 5/13, I believe we are now up to 11/13.

Obama's position has always been that if we don't put pressure on the Iraqies to solve their own problems, they never will.

This seems to be a bit of vague statement. Pressure can be applied with or without a troop surge. Obama opposed the surge.

So by the measure that he has always used, the success of the surge is not yet determined.

Err... then why did he say it had succeeded?

Certainly he must be inherently aware of the standards he has, himself, always used.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If you use the same criteria that we used about a year and a half ago, where it was decided that the surge was (at that time) not yet successful, vast progress has been made. Instead of 5/13, I believe we are now up to 11/13.

I don't get your point. There is no doubt that given enough troops, the situation could be controlled. The question was whether or not this was the best or only option.

How many insurgents or terrorists have simply gone into hiding?

This seems to be a bit of vague statement. Pressure can be applied with or without a troop surge. Obama opposed the surge.

There is nothing vague about it. As long as we fight the Iraqi's war for them, they have no incentive to solve their own problems.

Err... then why did he say it had succeeded?

Certainly he must be inherently aware of the standards he has, himself, always used.

He also made it clear that quelling the violence is not the same as solving the problem. He also made it clear that there have been other contributing factors, like the Sunni awakening - Iraqies taking resposiblity for their own problems.

 

[chemisttree]

Here's the first part of the interview.


Once again, Obama shines.

Obama gave a great interview here. He gave a spot on answer to the Iran question but his Iraq answer was a little shaky IMO. He again attributes the success of the surge to the Anbar Awakening ("...the Surge has succeeded in ways no one anticipated, by the way including President Bush and the other supporters.") rather than the other way around... the Anbar Awakening succeeded because of the Surge. And he also got it wrong that the Surge's success wasn't planned or at least hoped for by the Administration.

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.html"

As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al Qaeda document describes the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.

Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders, and they are protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. (the beginning of the Anbar Awakening) And as a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to keep up the pressure on the terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan -- and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq.

Sure... the success of the Anbar Awakening is totaly unrelated to the surge... How can anyone make such a statement with a straight face?

 

[seycyrus]

I don't get your point. There is no doubt that given enough troops, the situation could be controlled. The question was whether or not this was the best or only option.

I don't recall anyone ever saying "Sure the surge is going to reduce violence, allowing political stability and growth, and the formation of a coherent infrastructure, but ..."

I recall people saying the surge was going to make all of these matters worse!

There is nothing vague about it. As long as we fight the Iraqi's war for them, they have no incentive to solve their own problems.

*Put pressure on the Iraquis* IS vague and you have just clarified it, thank you.

He also made it clear that quelling the violence is not the same as solving the problem. He also made it clear that there have been other contributing factors, like the Sunni awakening - Iraqies taking resposiblity for their own problems.

Obama plainly stated "succeeded beyond our wildest hopes" or something similar.

If you want to argue aboutthe surge itself. I contend that the smaller initial successes of the surge allowed the creation of conditions that allowed for the success of a larger scale.

For example, I don't believe the Sunni awakening would have happened if 1) the surge didn't happen and 2) didn't succeed like it has.

 

[turbo]

For example, I don't believe the Sunni awakening would have happened if 1) the surge didn't happen and 2) didn't succeed like it has.

This is a chronology problem fostered by the McCain campaign. The awakening preceded the surge - not the other way around. Also al Sadr stood down his militia unilaterally. These two conditions would have reduced sectarian violence in Iraq regardless of how many extra American men and women were deployed. First off, the Iraqi Sunnis had a vested interest in reasserting control of the regions that they held, and rolling back al Qaeda - likewise, with a Shiite majority in the Iraq provisional government al Sadr had a vested interest in reducing violence, which he feels is critical to getting the US to agree to withdraw. Sectarian violence was also reduced by the simple fact that heavily Shiite regions had been cleansed of Sunnis, Sunni regions had been cleansed of Shiites, and both had been cleansed of Christians. It's hard to keep the sectarian violence at a high pitch after you have driven off almost all of your intended victims.

McCain never brings up these messy little details, critical as they are to the discussion. Instead he states simply that "the surge worked" and "Obama was wrong". If he is doing this to win the election, there are enough uneducated voters in the electorate that will pull the lever for him based on these lies, to help make the Iraq war a positive force in his polling. If he truly believes this, we are in deep do-do - I don't want a president with such a myopic, simplistic, wrong-headed view of foreign affairs and such a poor understanding of the societal dynamics in a country that our military is occupying. As it stands, his handlers are keeping him sheltered regarding foreign affairs questions, because he has repeatedly confused Shiites and Sunnis, and conflated Iranian Shiites with al Qaeda and accused the Iranians of arming them, despite the fact that al Qaeda are radical Sunnis, and are being funded and armed by gulf nations and NOT Iran.

 

[seycyrus]

This is a chronology problem fostered by the McCain campaign. The awakening preceded the surge - not the other way around.

Not even close. It was a mere beginning. A beginning that would have ended abruptly if the surge had not occured.

Also al Sadr stood down his militia unilaterally.

And note the time stamp on when that happened.

Instead he states simply that "the surge worked"

And now Obama is saying the surge succeeded.

 

[turbo]

al Sadr stood down his militia in August of 2007. You can look it up.
The Anbar Awakening began in the fall of 2006 - a year earlier.

Attributing the decrease in violence to a troop surge (in which our troops are still vastly over-numbered by insurgent forces, militias, etc) is simplistic and wrong. The situation on the ground is far more complex than that. I hope McCain understands that. I fear that he does not. You will notice that when Obama is given more than sound-bite time, he praises the troops and their efforts, and then goes on to say that we have tried to give the Iraqi government time to organize themselves and make progress on regaining control of their internal affairs - which they have NOT done.

He also says that increasing troop strength should have been directed toward Afghanistan and its border regions with Pakistan, where the real al Qaeda threat resides.

 

[Gokul43201]

Not even close. It was a mere beginning.

I thought the surge was what began the Sunni Awakening. And I was told that was a "http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/22/eveningnews/main4283813.shtml".

A beginning that would have ended abruptly if the surge had not occured.

Proof?

And now Obama is saying the surge succeeded.

In achieving what?

 

[turbo]

I thought the surge was what began the Sunni Awakening. And I was told that was a "http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/22/eveningnews/main4283813.shtml".

That's the stuff the surge proponents (some, like McCain, only after the fact) have been pushing. The Anbar Awakening preceded the surge by a good long time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/w...00&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

 

[Cyrus]

Don't put words in my mouth either. I never said YOU said.

The implication of your statement was that I did not consider it a valid point -at least that's how I viewed your comment. Because on its own, it's out of place in the context of the discussion we were having. You basically placed a random statement about what you saw that had nothing to do with what I was talking about. So, if you're making a statement about it being a valid point, fine. I don't disagree that it was. So long as were clear your not implying that I said it was not a valid point then were fine on that issue.

My point was that it was a valid point and needed to brought up. O'reiley is doing his job.

He's doing a horrible job. He's a clown.

Run away, lest I frighten you with my O'reiley challenge.

I'm not running anywhere -sorry you don't scare me. As for your 'challenge', you should know I'm not going to waste my time on trying to prove this guys wrong or right. He conducts himself as a pompus a-hole and is a disrespectful host. I have no patience for his fear mongering and endless tirades on his guests. He is a clown. Period.

 

[Cyrus]

Sorry, but it's not in Obama's character to just "sit there and listen".

All you have to do is watch the tape to see O' Toolbag trying to lecture obama on how things work.

I watch charlie rose, a real news program with world leaders and the who's who of the world in all aspects of society.

I don't waste my time with O'Toolbag who has nothing better to do than go after small town newspapers and call them 'pinheads'. He's a sorry excuse for a human being, and a news person.

 

[humanino]

He's doing a horrible job. He's a clown.

He is indeed a clown. But he remember, a clown knows what he is doing : he wants to make people laugh. O'Reilly wants to make audience.

I would actually compare him more to a jester, because of the power in his hands. Jesters were the only ones with true freedom of speech at this time, which entitled them with quite some influence. Here the situation is similar, not about freedom of speech, but about both the roles to entertain and the political power that results from O'Reilly's position.

That being said, I will say that indeed, Obama was brillant. Once again, for me there is simply no contest.

 

[Astronuc]

Awakening Movements in Iraq - History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awakening_movements_in_Iraq#History

In 2005, the Abu Mahals, a tribe that smuggled across the Syrian border, was being forced out of their territory by a tribe allied with Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. The tribe proposed an alliance with the United States force in November 2005 and began receiving weapons and training.[12][1] In September 2006, the leader of the movement, Sheik Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, formed the Anbar Awakening Council also called "Anbar Awakening" to counter the influence of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The Awakening movements preceeded the surge. Both were necessary to achieve the improved security and stability.
See also - http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1572796,00.html (Dec 2006)

Apparently the Iraqi government wants to disband the Awakening movements (or their militias), or at least the Sunnis (?) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awakening_movements_in_Iraq#Disbanding

Iraq is still far from being stable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Sattar_Buzaigh_al-Rishawi

Assassinations and kidnappings are still all too common.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Assassinations and kidnappings are still all too common.

You could say that about Mexico or Columbia too

 

[russ_watters]

I don't get your point. There is no doubt that given enough troops, the situation could be controlled. The question was whether or not this was the best or only option.

It may or may not have been the best, but that's the beauty of speculation - you can speculate all you want about things that never happened and you can never be wrong. But he'll have a hard time convincing people that his fantasy could have been a reality and I doubt he'll try, in any case - it would be a mistake for him to argue what you are arguing. The fact of the matter is that the surge worked: violence is down since before the surge.

That doesn't make a person who looked for 'other options' wrong, but it does make opposition to the surge on the grounds that the surge wouldn't work wrong.

How many insurgents or terrorists have simply gone into hiding?

Perhaps a lot, but that's not the primary reason for the drop in violence, the primary reason is the end of the civil war between Islamic factions. Ie:

It is also a fact that the Sunni awakening played a large role in improving conditions in Iraq. This had nothing to do with the surge.

I would say that the Sunni awakening played a large role in improving conditions in Iraq. This had a lot to do with the surge.

Anyway if the insurgents are in hiding, I guess you are implying that they might come out of hiding. But there's a problem with that: stability is self-sustaining. The decrease in violence enables the Iraqi government to gain strength and the Iraqi military to gain recruits and train-up. So even if you are right in your insinuation that there are more insurgents out there who will soon start attacking again, the Iraqis will be better able to handle it than they were a year ago.

I agree with others that the drop in violence in Iraq is a major problem for Obama. He opposed the surge and the surge worked and nitpicking what-if fantasies isn't going to convince people that his policy wasn't a mistake. What Obama's Iraq policy looks/ed like to me is 'yank our troops out and screw the Iraqis'.

But beyond that is the 'what do we do now?' question. Now a 'yank our troops out' policy isn't even useful anymore - we're pulling our troops out at an accelerating rate anyway (big announcement coming next week on this and you can bet the farm on what Bush is going to do), which makes the positions of both candidates irrelevant at this point. But McCain's is irrelevant because his previous policy worked while Obama's is irrelevant because his previous policy was ignored. That makes the current situation in Iraq a big, big bonus for McCain, that will only increase up to the election unless we see a big turn-around in the stability before then.

 

[LightbulbSun]

But Russ, a troop surge is not a long term solution. The long term solution is to make Iraq a sovereign nation.

 

[LowlyPion]

But Russ, a troop surge is not a long term solution. The long term solution is to make Iraq a sovereign nation.

A better solution may have been not to go there to begin with. Then a troop surge wouldn't have been needed and 3 thousand Americans wouldn't have perished.

Maybe that Bush vision thing wasn't working at the start is the real problem?.

 

[russ_watters]

But Russ, a troop surge is not a long term solution.

No one ever said it was -- and it wasn't: it's already ended.

The long term solution is to make Iraq a sovereign nation.

The surge won't cause that on its own, but it has an awful lot to do with the progress Iraq has made toward being a sovereign nation. Stability is a prerequisite for sovereignty.

 

[Gokul43201]

The fact of the matter is that the surge worked: violence is down since before the surge.

The latter doesn't imply the former. And neither implies that it wasn't a stupid idea.

 

[Gokul43201]

What Obama's Iraq policy looks/ed like to me is 'yank our troops out and screw the Iraqis'.

Did Bush's policy look to you 'take the troops in and screw the Iraqis'?

 

[mheslep]

...Iraq is still far from being stable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Sattar_Buzaigh_al-Rishawi

Assassinations and kidnappings are still all too common.

You could say that about Mexico or Columbia too :wink

And Chicago, Illinois, 125 shot dead this Summer.

 

[russ_watters]

The latter doesn't imply the former. And neither implies that it wasn't a stupid idea.

Even assuming that your implication that the surge had nothing to do with the downturn in violence is correct, how do you think Obama will be able to argue that to the voters? That is what this is about, Gokul.

Did Bush's policy look to you 'take the troops in and screw the Iraqis'?

These little one-liners are really silly, Gokul. Besides not having anything to do with anything, that isn't anywhere close to how Bush's actions were initially generally received.

 

[mheslep]

Both candidates for the Presidency of the United States call the surge in Iraq a big success. If one thinks otherwise you might consider backing a 3rd party.

 

[russ_watters]

You're right - I just went looking around and found it in the transcript:

I think that there's no doubt that the violence in down. I believe that that is a testimony to the troops that were sent and General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated, by the way, including President Bush and the other supporters.

So this argument about the surge not doing anything is really just a non-starter. Obama said it worked, so the question of if it worked or not isn't even on the table. It's good of him to admit that, but the point remains: this is a big problem for him and it is going to keep getting worse as we keep pulling troops out and handing over more territory to Iraqi control.

[edit] O'Reilly annoys me. He likes being the attack dog, but when you have the upper hand, you still have to let your opponent speak. There's no way to trap him if you don't let him speak and O'Reilly really could have pounded on this issue if he were a better debater.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You're right - I just went looking around and found it in the transcript:

So you have been debating without even watching the interview? I thought we all knew this.

So this argument about the surge not doing anything is really just a non-starter. Obama said it worked, so the question of if it worked or not isn't even on the table. It's good of him to admit that, but the point remains: this is a big problem for him and it is going to keep getting worse as we keep pulling troops out and handing over more territory to Iraqi control.

The fact is that he has called for a timetable all along. Only now is everyone else catching up.

 

[Gokul43201]

Even assuming that your implication that the surge had nothing to do with the downturn in violence is correct,

I didn't imply that. I only implied that the downturn in violence may have had nothing to do with the surge, but it is easy to conflate coincidence (events happening simultaneously) with causation. But it would be be a bad idea to try and make an intelligent point to an unintelligent audience. And that was only one of the two points I made.

how do you think Obama will be able to argue that to the voters? That is what this is about, Gokul.

How will McCain be able to argue to voters that his position in support of the war and that his assessment that it would be short and deliver an overwhelming success were sound? They've both got difficult jobs convincing the people of such (and other) things. What will be important is not how they convince the people of the basis of their positions but rather how they convince people that the other guy's blunder was the bigger one.

These little one-liners are really silly, Gokul.

The point was to show how silly an assessment you voiced over Obama's position in your one-line summary. I guess the point hit home.

Besides not having anything to do with anything, that isn't anywhere close to how Bush's actions were initially generally received.

I expect you to have a more informed and intelligent picture of things than the average John Q public. You were talking about how the policy "looks/ed like to me", which, I hope, is different from how they looks/ed to the average person. So I don't understand the change in direction.

 

[chemisttree]

Part 2 of the interview is tonight. There will be an installment Tuesday and Wednesday as well.

Will O'Reilly drop a gem like Obama's Iraq answer each night? Wow! Talk about a nightmare for the Obama campaign! A nightly disaster that goes on for 3 days and discussion of them and his decline in the polls that lasts through the weekend.

O'Reilly might have just given McCain's campaign an Obama http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm10.html"