Oval Office
Sep 1st, 2010 by Frank Knotts
Pres. Obama in his second Oval Office speech announced to the nation that the formal combat mission in Iraq has ended.
For seventeen minutes the president told us about how the troops preformed every task that they were asked to. Which they did. He spoke of their sacrifice and that of their families,and God bless them for it. He talked about the cost of that sacrifice. He spoke of the monetary cost of fighting the war. He even praised former Pres. Bush for his support of the troops and his love of country.
But Pres. Obama never once used the word success or victory. He did not take the time to explain the larger goals of going into Iraq in the first place. He didn’t tell the people of the nation whether those goals have been met, only that we are pulling our troops out.
To me, if we do not clearly define this war as being a success or that we have achieved victory, then our enemies can. We allow the radical Islamist to say that we have pulled out because, like Vietnam, we have lost the political will to finish.
I happen to think that Iraq has been a success. We have removed a tyrant from his throne, we have set a democracy on the path of freedom and given the people of Iraq the chance for self governance. It would have been nice if the President had said so.
Pres. Obama then went on to talk about Afghanistan and the economy. I believe that this president sees the war on terrorism as a distraction from his domestic agenda, which is the complete overhaul of our capitalist system.
I give the President high marks for his honoring of the troops and their families, but for his total lack of defining the reasons for being there in the first place, I give his Oval Office speech a D – at best. Oval office speeches are usually used to communicate a great tragedy or to tell the American people, that the president intends on taking the nation in a new direction. President Obama did neither of these things in my opinion.
Frank
I heard that Obama pulled his shoulder out of joint while patting himself on the back after the speech.
Yes Iraq is a success story but not due to Obama’s policies. George Bush put in place the surge which Obama opposed vehemently and vocally to gain far left support while campaigning.
He seized credit where he was due none. He’s grabbing at straws to regain lost popularity caused by his failed policies.
Cool, so let’s start taking on the tyrants! I suggest we invade North Korea, Iran and Cuba for starters. Then maybe we can start invading countries that have “democratically-elected” tyrants (guys that were elected, but we don’t like). Obviously, we have to start with Venezuela.
There is obviously victory in Iraq, because there are more al Qaeda there now than when we invaded. Thanks George Bush!
“But Pres. Obama never once used the word success or victory.”
Wow. You are stupid.
Wow. You are stupid.
And coming from you this means …?
LMAO …
” I happen to think that Iraq has been a success.”
Just let that hang there in your pea brain for a second.
Okay then.
“To me, if we do not clearly define this war as being a success or that we have achieved victory, then our enemies can.”
So….unless we collectively pretend that we won, our enemies can claim victory and that will make us look like we have tiny . Help me Doc! I think I get it.
Frank said: “But Pres. Obama never once used the word success or victory.”
President Obama said: “In an age without surrender ceremonies, we must earn VICTORY through the SUCCESS of our partners and the strength of our own nation.”
Please acknowledge that you didn’t listen to the speech or check a transcript.
(Transcript: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/31/obama.speech.transcript/#fbid=02pJqzmlR6w&wom=false)
Jason
Instead of name calling, let’s base this discussion on the issues and facts.
The issue is Frank Knotts is an idiot. This post provides enough evidence to declare it a fact.
“I believe that this president sees the war on terrorism as a distraction from his domestic agenda, which is the complete overhaul of our capitalist system.”
Need more evidence?
Oh Snap. Thanks anon.
The whole premise of this masturbatory nonsense is wrong. How much more evidence do you need that Knotts is a flat out moron?
That quote is not the same as saying the operation was victorious. Try looking at context and not the fact the words appeared. Then you get Frank’s point. I realize that Frank may be too sophisticated for your normal dialog, but try to push forward and follow along.
I believe that this president sees the war on terrorism as a distraction from his domestic agenda
No – the war is a distraction from BUSH’S disastrous domestic agenda. In 2004 Bush had produced a net job loss in his first term. Bush used the war to falsely manipulate American patriotism and transform it into (just barely) electoral support.
Obama never once used the word success or victory.
You can’t win when you are fighting the wrong guy.
What did you want, a “Mission Accomplished” banner?
He did not take the time to explain the larger goals of going into Iraq in the first place.
Maybe he can have Colin Powell go over it again.
Obama did say this to the troops at Ft. Bliss:
“But the fact of the matter is that because of the extraordinary service that all of you have done, and so many people here at Fort Bliss have done, Iraq has an opportunity to create a better future for itself, and America is more secure.”
Here’s what Pres. Bush said in his 5 Step Plan for Democracy in Iraq delivered on 24 May 2004, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle, PA:
“Our agenda, in contrast, is freedom and independence, security and prosperity for the Iraqi people. And by removing a source of terrorist violence and instability in the Middle East, we also make our own country more secure. ”
Sounds like success to me.
Bob and Mayella Ewell have spoken.
Look – Since you guys think that the Earth is 10,000 years old, I can buy that you honestly regard our invasion of Iraq as successful.
It is just stupid, anti-factual position to take. That’s all. But hey, this is a free country. Being stupid and anti-factual is your right.
He did not take the time to explain the larger goals of going into Iraq in the first place. He didn’t tell the people of the nation whether those goals have been met,
It’s a dicey subject, since most of the causes named in the AUMF were illegal as justification for war. With the possible exception of violations of UN resolutions relating to WMDs – and we know how that turned out.
So do you really want to rehash Bush’s goals? I’d prefer prosecutions for those “goals.” But since Obama has ruled out prosecution, he did well not to bring up that ugly past.
Good times.
Jason330
Frank is stating the facts as he perceives them. You need to attack the message not the messenger.
False. Frank is entitled to his opinion, but he is not entitled to his own facts.
Making up imaginary worlds is fun for children, but it is stupid and wrong for people who want to be regarded as adults.
Jason
Jason wrote “Oh Snap. Thanks anon.”
I don’t know you but I believe you must be teenager by this statement, Perhaps 15.
I’m young at heart, but and old fogey when it comes to fantasy vs. reality.
Nobody pays attention to BO anymore…he’s backround noise.
You know what that speech needed? More flightsuit!
Lol! Now watch this drive!!
Frank, you say ” I give the President high marks for his honoring of the troops and their families, but for his total lack of defining the reasons for being there in the first place” you give a “D”.
I was all for attacking Iraq, for no other reason than kicking ass over “there” as retribution for 9/11. Pulling down that statue of Saddam felt real real good. But explain the war in Iraq? That’s tough.
You have to admit it would have been awkward for President Obama to open the subject of why exactly we went into Iraq. Does anybody really want to rehash the Weapons Of Mass Destruction bit? Not me.
Do we say we thought there was a big bomb there but there was not; but that’s okay we decided to do nation building instead?
How do we explain, that after a cadre of Saudi Arabian men, led by the son of a prominent Saudi family, attacked us for having military bases in Saudi Arabia too close to Mecca – how do we explain we retaliated by attacking Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia where Al Qaeda was first established thanks to deep pocketed Saudi oil sheiks ?
Saudi Arabia, Mecca, the very subject of the Bin Laden Fatwa declaring the Holy Jihad in 1998. Goggle it up. Bin Laden declares war 1998. Wants US bases out of Saudi Arabia away from Mecca, end support of Israel.
How would President Obama, sorting through the post 9/11 debris, “explain” that after being attacked by a group of Saudis radicals backed by a prominent Saudi family son, we took vengeance upon Iraq?
Should Obama tell the nation the problem with attacking Saudi Arabia was that they have all the oil. That we are “friends” very good friends to Saudi princes who cut off hands and legs to enforce Islamic law. So we picked somebody else. Somebody not radical Islamic.
How could President Obama explain we launched our war against radical Islam by attacking the only secular State in the region not a radical Islamic theocracy?
It gets very complicated trying to explain why we did what we did.
Hard to explain why, less than two years after 9/11, the President of the United States was seen kissing and holding hands with the Saudi Prince in Crawford, Texas. All laughing, skipping like nothing much had happened regarding Mr. Bin Laden of Saudi Arabia.
President Obama ignored the “reasons” we went into Iraq because there’s no coherent explanation. Only double talk adequately covers the subject of who where when how or why.
We overreacted to 9/11. We panicked. Radically changed our monetary policy, our fiscal policy, created hugely expensive Homeland Security bureaucracies, borrowed money huge sums to pursue nation building wars far away from home. Mr. bin Laden and family remain unscathed by all of it.
Now we are where we are. Broke. Still looking over our shoulders awaiting the next attack. Is bin Laden in the mountains? Looking for something, somewhere to call a victory.
Sarah Palin, speaking for the Tea Party, said the President, during his TV speech, should have declared the war in Iraq “a spectacular success”.
Words more appropriate to the joy of a victorious soccer mom, but surely a bit too light, too cheery a way to pay homage to the tens of thousands of armless legless faceless young Americans maimed dead and buried. Not the kind of words the solemnity of war requires.
You don’t go to Walter Reed or Arlington with your chest all pumped up like something was won. War inflicts great loss even upon the victors. We suffer those loses for freedom. We do not celebrate them.
You can try to explain Iraq if you like. But we all know we are grasping at straws.
The issue is Frank Knotts is an idiot. This post provides enough evidence to declare it a fact.
The issue if Jason is a trust fund baby who has a lot of time to waste. Ya’d think with being handed everything to him in life he’d be a heck of a lot smarter. But he’s not. Makes you wonder.
His comments provide enough evidence to declare that a fact.
Hey Trust Fund — don’t you and Geek have comments to delete over at DL?
Yeah right… if Obama says we “won,” you soulless wingnuts will be the first ones to shove it back in his face the next time the jihadis blow up a US convoy in Iraq.
how do we explain we retaliated by attacking Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia where Al Qaeda was first established thanks to deep pocketed Saudi oil sheiks ?
You can’t ‘explain’ the Iraq war any more than you can ‘explain’ WWI. The complications are endless.
“To err is human,
To forgive, Divine.”…..Alexander Pope
Okay, so can one of you oh! so! smart Obama apologist out there tell me exactly what this means? “In an age without surrender ceremonies, we must earn victory through the success of our partners and the strength of our own nation.” To me it seems as if he is telling us what his definition of victory and success is, but doesn’t actually say the we acheived it.
And by the way the complete quote was, “In an age without surrender ceremonies, we must earn victory through the success of our partners and the strength of our own nation. Every American who serves joins an unbroken line of heroes that stretches from Lexington to Gettysburg; from Iwo Jima to Inchon; from Khe Sanh to Kandahar — Americans who have fought to see that the lives of our children are better than our own.” I see nothing here that leads me to believe that Pres. Obama see this as a victory.
jason330 calls me an idiot for saying,“I believe that this president sees the war on terrorism as a distraction from his domestic agenda, which is the complete overhaul of our capitalist system.” Well jason330, I would suggest you learn to read, and read to learn. I said he sees the war on terrorism as a distraction form his domestic agenda. I didn’t say he was using it as a distraction. Pres. Obama has no taste for defending this nation from its enemies, he sees national defence as second or third, at best, on his list of things to do, number one being, the complete overhaul of our capitalist system.
Now you can name call all you want, though all of the liberal voices so far on this post have forgotten to call me a racist, but it doesn’t change the facts.
BO better stick to ballparks and convention centers- at a desk, he’s one step above comatose.
“In an age without surrender ceremonies, we must earn victory through the success of our partners and the strength of our own nation.” To me it seems as if he is telling us what his definition of victory and success is, but doesn’t actually say the we acheived it.
But we haven’t achieved it yet. That’s the point, which flew over your head (or through it).
There is a V-E day and a V-J Day, but there will be no V-I Day for Iraq.
Right now, success in Iraq is having a self-supporting pro-American government that doesn’t get itself assassinated every two weeks. If we can keep that up for ten years, maybe I’ll hoist a glass with you to declare victory.
alpha, my point is, which you choose to ignore, is that by not defining this as a victory, it allows our enemies to. The radical Islamist will say that we have pulled out before the job was completed. They will tell the Iraqi forces that we are leaving them, much the same way we left Afghanistan after Russia pulled out, which by the way lead to Osama bin Laden.
“alpha, my point is, which you choose to ignore, is that by not defining this as a victory, it allows our enemies to.”
That is just plain stupid. I wish you could hear yourself.
That is just plain stupid. I wish you could hear yourself.
Quack, heal thyself first.
Hube – Comment on the post, not on me. Does it make any sense to you that we need to “declare victory” or risk losing face?
Comment on the damn post for once moron.
Comment on the damn post for once moron.
Why should I even consider doing what you request, Trust Fund? You should know I am merely mirroring your juvenile antics.
Awww… wassamatter? Don’t like it?
Tough. Complain to mommy and daddy.
Jeez. You’ve got problems. Have a nice day and don’t take your nutbag issues out on your students.
LOL … I’ve got problems.
Must be that “handed everything to me” mentality you manifest so much. Again.
LMAO …
Whatever Senor. ¡Hasta luego!
If BO really had any common sense, he would have given the speech in front of a military crowd. The Socialist-Democrats need something- anything- to divert Americans’ attention from his failed economic policies, socialized medicine, obscene debt, and everything else that has turned the majority of the people against his party.
But, in the clutch, he failed to deliver.
Yeah well all that might be true, but we only get only one President at a time. So the old “lead follow or get out the way” comes to mind. Step one towards restoring Honor is respect for national election results.
Dream on Don.
If BO really had any common sense, he would have given the speech in front of a military crowd.
In a flightsuit.
Let me try a line out that may work better. I was hoping for something like this. The people of Iraq were under a tyrannical leader who killed at least a half million of the Iraqi people. He distablized the region with his threats against and invasions of neighbors. The world is better for the regime change in Iraq. Americans, Iraqis, and our coalition partners have battled the remanents of his regime and an all out assualt by Al Quaeda. We won that battle.
Now the responsibilty for continued security is on the Iraqi people. Some elements may continue to cause trouble, but the local forces are more than capable of dealing with them. We will continue to provide whatever technical support is needed. We will never abandon our allies.
I praise the dedication and skill of America’s military which made this hand off possible.