Critique of Obama’s 9/04 Interview with Bill O’Reilly
This is an easy one. In short, you didn’t miss a thing.
Briefly, Obama’s presentation was hackneyed and, as usual, characteristically nuanced. I honestly believe the man is either viscerally incapable of telling the truth or has been blinded by his own shortsighted ideology.
A prisoner of his finely honed talking points, Obama still couldn’t bring himself to admit the screamingly obvious fact that the “surge” has worked. With a platform invested from the beginning in America’s defeat in Iraq, he disingenuously maintained that the seminal Anbar uprising was nothing more than a fortuitous phenomenon totally unrelated to the surge and to Gen. Patraeus’s enormously successful counterinsurgency strategy.
And, of course, when queried about our enemies in the world, he studiously avoided the use of “Islamofascism.”
Totally uninformative and nauseatingly predictable.
Yup. The “community organizer” and flimflam man from Illinois remains an accomplished spinmeister with the character of an asp.
3 Responses to “Critique of Obama’s 9/04 Interview with Bill O’Reilly”
Discussion Area - Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
JDelaney
I am sorry I have to disagree with you on one point. After a serious brow beating by O’reilly Obama did admit the surge worked. He tried to move on rapidly after saying it.
There is no doubt that this man can not admit he made a mistake.
You’re much too generous, Tiberius.
His “admission” was so painfully nuanced as to be an inartful dodge, a refusal to clearly admit that the surge really did work. He described the surge results as being “unforeseen” by even the president and cleverly omitted the fact that 15 of the 18 political measurements had been achieved. If that’s an “admission,” then I will admit that the moon is made of green cheese. It’s utterly hollow.
He couldn’t even allow that the Anbar “awakening”/rebellion against Al Qaeda was symptomatic of the surge’s success. Methinks I’ll stand by what I heard–and, as importantly, what I didn’t hear.
jDelaney
I cant disagree with you, I was too generous. I listened carefully today when O’Reilly played it again on the radio. He managed to say it with such double talk that you could get whatever you were looking for from the statement.
Please don’t get me wrong, I had to agree with 90% of what you say. The big Dem talking point is that Bush didn’t even think the surge would work. There is a Woodward book out now saying that and there were NY Times articles stating Bush was not sure and had reservations even after the decision was made. That That is such a spin, if It was Clinton or Obama it would be reported that the president listened to all sides and came to the painful decision that for the good of the country it must be done.