« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

I wonder whether ABC News will be getting a seat on the flight *back*, now.

Well played, guys.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  July 22nd, 2008 at 06:46 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I don’t know what’s funnier: the essential minimalism of the blindsiding here (amazing what a simple “No, really?” or equivalent can do), or the way that Senator Obama flubbed it. Via Power Line (whose title I almost stole):

{Youtube link, for those having problems with it.}

Well, I guess that now we know why he won’t debate Senator McCain.

Moe Lane

PS: Expect to see his acolytes jumping in to try to defend in 3… 2… 1…

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • peg_c

    Uh humina humina humina. Not so articulate now, is he? Oops, the truth slipped out, and an ugly truth it is.

  • scotteiland

    That answer reflects either willful blindness or a complete lack of vision by the Senator.

    And once McCain gets a chance to debate him, whether that’s in a town hall format or anything that Axelrod can’t completely control, the general public will realize he’s just a lightweight leftist from the Chicago machine.

    And this was a friendly interview! Can you imagine if he sat down with O’Reilly or ANYONE who isn’t a fellow lefty?

  • ThreeNineNine

    5 deaths this month? The 5th death was on the 9th of this month. The 6th was on the 13th. There are currently 12 U.S. deaths in Iraq, although 5 of them were non-combat.

    Linky

    It seems like biased reporting, seeing as they’re comparing 1/3 of a month to a full month. If it was unbiased, they’d probably compare June 08 to June 07. I’m just surprised which side they’re on… are we sure this is ABC?

  • Moe_Lane

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/obama-on-the-su.html

    The reference by ABC was to combat deaths; and even if the number is 7 instead of 5, the point is that – as Power Line noted – apparently Obama would rather lose a war than an election.

  • streetwise

    Sans teleprompter, Obama makes GWB look like JFK.

  • ThreeNineNine

    Especially when he’s wrong. But skewing the facts to do it? I find that wrong no matter who’s attacking whom.

    I just counted the deaths in July 07 – 79. Of those, 13 were non-hostile.

    The numbers:
    July 07 total: 79
    July 07 non-hostile: 13
    July 07 hostile: 66
    July 08* total: 12
    July 08* non-hostile: 5
    July 08* hostile: 7

    *21/31 days through the month.

    I find it wrong to compare 2/3 of a month to a full month the way it did. It threw the big bold numbers up there and the only mention of it not being a full-month numbers was the guy saying “so far this month”.

    And if that was truly on the air yesterday, then the numbers aren’t even remotely right. They use 78 as their 07 number, which is all fatalities, and 5 for the 08 number, which should be 12 for “total fatalities”.

    It’s misleading. That’s wrong no matter who it benefits.

  • John_E

    Terry: If you had to do it over again knowing what you know now would you support the surge.

    Barack: No. No because I… keep in mind that, that…

    Terry: You wouldn’t.

    Barack: …that ah well ya know keep keep in mind eh. These hypotheticals are very difficult. Ya know hind sight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is that ah at the time we had to change the political debate because the view of the ah Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with.

    John E.: Hindsight is 20/20? Yes and consequently we can all agree that the surge has been an amazing success and put the USA on the path to victory in Iraq. But you are saying that even knowing then that Bush’s surge is the path to victory you would still have fought it in order to heap discredit on the Bush administration?

    Barack, perhaps unwittingly, perhaps candidly, in his own words has told us how BDS primarily shaped his Iraq policy. He’s not going to let a little thing like defeat in Iraq stop him from discrediting Bush.

  • Rod_Patrick

    Not just apparent. It’s *obvious *that Obama and the rest of the demoncrats would rather lose the war just to ensure that they’d win the election.

    “Obama or die” is something like “We win or all reps will die, including those silly US troops”.

  • Moe_Lane

    Because you’re apparently more worried about the stats of a two-second graphic than in the fact that the assumed Democratic candidate for President still seems determined to “inartfully” run his position in Iraq right into the ground at hight speed. As the latter is actually the topic of discussion here, not the former, I suggest that you go to the source and address your concerns to them.

    Moe Lane

    PS: This “bashing” thing? I wasn’t. I was highlighting. Big difference.

  • baghdad_bob

    There have been 12 deaths reported in Iraq in July. 5 are actual combat fatalities. 5 are non-hostile deaths. The remaining 2 are the two servicemen who went missing in May 2007 and their remains were recovered this month.

    Even if the numbers are not exact (albeit close) or are not over the same time period, they do point to a trend. The trend is that violence in Iraq is dramatically better than a year ago thanks to the surge. The surge that Senator McCain said we needed a year before President Bush announced it, and the one that Obama still would not support today, in spite of monumental evidence of its success.

    It’s the judgment of John McCain vs. the judgment of Barack Obama, and John McCain wins.

  • Joe_Schmo

    To Obama, the battle in Iraq is merely to be used to score political points.

  • jimmuy8

    Bush is the stupid one because he mangles words but The Obama is the smart one because he strings together a bunch of pat phrases that require no mental exertion?

    He’s interviewing for a job and he says: “Don’t ask me to respond to hypotheticals.”
    What? Then just how the heck are we supposed to know what you’ll do on the job?

    “OK, Barry. You’re managing the noon shift and you spot the cashier taking $10 out of the till. What do you do?

    -Well, uh. The main thing to understand is . . . I mean, these hypotheticals are very difficult. The context and root causes are important. I mean, we, uh, we don’t know all the facts. And it’s essential, that is, uh, very important to understand the whole situation before acting.”

  • jyalai

    The interview demonstrates Barack Obama’s response to a past mistake in judgement is to fall back on “At least I disagreed with George W. Bush.” As long as he gets that out, everything is okay. His BDS buddies will fawn all over him, regardless of the fact he was wrong about the surge.

    At least George W. Bush had the guts to know he needed to do something different and did it. That’s a true leader.

  • Darin_H

    20/20 hindsight would be saying “I was wrong, if I knew that the surge would be a complete and total success I would have supported it.”

    Barack’s hindsight seems to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 20/180

  • Jeff_Emanuel

    Obama is no more articulate than President Bush — he just has a deeper voice, and doesn’t have a Texas accent.

    That’s it. That’s all. A Texas accent is a pretty superficial reason to hate a guy and call him dim-witted, isn’t it?

  • speciallist

    Barry is ACTING…smart people can tell when somebodies not Genuine.

    And you what?..he’s a BAD actor

  • Joe_Schmo

    N/T