O'Reilly interviews Obama

 Hat tip, AOW.

If Obama got what we he supposedly wanted and Bush refocused the war from Iraq to Afghanistan, guess what Obama (and the rest of the left) would say.....

Suddenly the left would start criticizing the war in Afghanistan and wondering aloud why we we weren't in Pakistan, or North Korea, and so on... ad infinitum.

It's pure cynicism for partisanship's sake. The Democrats know that no war can remain popular for very long with Americans, so the strategy has always been to quarry favor with that sentiment rather than focus on the mission.

Obama is still pushing diplomacy for Iran, despite the fact they're going nuke and haven't responded to Western diplomacy since the 1979.

He denies a terrorist connection to Iran, and Bill O doesn't call him on it. Obama's reasoning for not invading Iraq is that Saddam supposedly wasn't connected to al-Qaeda, yet Iran's long record of state sponsorship of terrorism, even if they go nuclear, is still no reason for a response.

But Bill is too busy telling us what HE THINKS to pry open Obama. Too bad.

Bill apparently doesn't know that a sanction on Iran would stop the sale of oil to China or Russia, so an economic sanction is worthless.

When was the last time you bought something that said "made in Iran" on it?

I think Obama's denial that he was opposed the surge is a bit revealing. He wants to appear to be a sound foreign policy guy, he really does, but he's not willing to take the necessary measures to institute any kind of workable policy abroad.

He will always try to implement sanctions with enemies that have no economic connection with us in the first place. Laughably naive, frighteningly dangerous.

Trackposted to Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, , Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Democrat=Socialist, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, The Pink Flamingo, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Comments

[Brooke]

We'll see how this pans out next week.

I've never been a huge fan of Bill, but I predict the longer Obama has to speak with him, the more he will be inclined to screw up.

I wonder what kind of caveats Obama's people put down before he would do the interview at all?

[kevin]

That's a good point Brooke, and it may be the reason it took so long for the interview to happen.

[Pinky]

Dang, Bill had him sweating a few times.
It should bother Obama's followers that their leader doesn't beat down a reporter like Bill O'Reilly. Bill dominated the interview. The future POTUS should have control, but he didn't. He's weak.

Anyhoo, I agree with your points about sanctions. It's pointless. Iran couldn't care less.

[Chuck]

I didn't see all of the inteview because I got home from work late. What I saw though didn't impress me. I thought O'Reilly let him slide on some stuff. I felt it was more theater than a true hard hitting interview. A cynical person would wonder if there wasn't some agreements to get Obama on.

Does anyone notice none of these people, Obama, Bill Clinton, etc sit for an interview with Sean Hannity, he would eat them up.

[diogenes]

Where to start?

Interesting that you know exactly when the Democrats would say if the war was "refocused from Iraq to Afghanistan."

First off, nobody will ever know for sure, because it never happened. You can be cynical if you want,but you've got no proof that your cynicism is well placed.

On top of that, it's nifty how you gloss over the fact that Bush refocused the war from Afghanistan to Iraq. That was an unnecessary move and it led to our country taking its eyes off the ball. Afghanistan was where al Qaeda was, and Bush wanted so badly to beat up Saddam he could taste it, so Big Dick Cheney ginned up a case for war in Iraq.

Next up: it doesn't serve anybody's purpose for Obama to "beat down" Bill O'Reilly. Obama didn't give O'Reilly an inch when Billo misrepresented Obama's statements, but getting into a shouting match with a Bill O'Reilly is senseless.

Lastly, Hannity is a blowhard fraud. He got his hat handed to him by Al Sharpton, of all people, tonight. Alan Colmes brings up the topic of the unemployment rate being at its highest point in the last 5 years, he and Sharpton discuss it for about 15 seconds,and then when they ask Hannity about it, he totally ignores the issue and asks if Bush was right about the Surge! Sharpton rightfully pointed out that that wasn't what they were talking about, and that's not what Hannity was asked about, but Hannity kept right at it.

It's like the old adage about lawyers: when you don't have the law on your side, pound on the facts. When you don't have the facts on your side, pound on the law. And when you don't have the law or the facts on your side, pound on the table. Hannity often pounds the table.

[kevin]

diogenes,
My suspicion of the Dems is based on the War in Iraq and their attitude towards the military and US foreign policy in general. The Dems have invested a lot politically to ending the war in Iraq and have to used it successfully to erase Bush's popularity. The temptation to continue this strategy into Afghanistan is going to be too irresistible for them. You can call it cynicism if you want, I call it recent history.

The Surge was in Iraq, not Afghanistan, so I think it's safe to say the main focus and most of the troops are in Iraq. The surge in Afghanistan is referred to as a "mini-surge", indicating that more troops are in Iraq, making Iraq the main focus for now.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jan2008/afgh-j19.shtml

It's not "gloss".

[diogenes]

No, you misunderstood my point.

although we tend to forget now, our Armed Forces went into Afghanistan first, in an effort to root out al Qaeda. When Bushie couldn't find OBL, he and Big Dick figured out a way to start a war with Iraq. That diverted U.S. attention and assets from the real "war on terror" in Afghanistan.

Democrats (and a good number of Republicans) are looking to get more troops into Afghanistan because that is where the war on terrorism exists, from the very beginning. Iraq was and is an extremely costly (in lives and dollars) sideshow.

[kevin]

diogenes,
You might want to read this.

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

It's naive to think that Afghanistan is the sole source of terrorism.

This kind of argument allows al-Qaeda to move from country to country knowing that the left will refuse to chase them. Just like Clinton refused to kill OBL the after the first time he bombed the WTC.

[diogenes]

Yeah, I read it, as you asked. The ties that report shows between Al Qaeda and Iraq are less than minimal and VERY suspect. The biggest link is Atta meeting the Iraqi security honcho in Prague. Originally this was reported as fact, but it's since been debunked. It never happened. And if that's the best this guy has, then his whole premise gets flushed.

Look at that initial chart. It lists a number of terrorist organziations and the number of victims each one claims. But where is the tie of those organizations to Iraq. And notice: Al Qaeda isn't even on that list.

No, Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, and we let them slip away. And we moved our focus to Iraq, without a significant reason for doing so except for the fact that Bushie wanted to get Iraq from the moment he was sworn in.

What's Bushie done in the seven years since 9-11? Well, he certainy HASN'T found OBL. (Actually, we did find him in a cave at Tora Bora, and we allowed him to slip out of our grasp.) And he's chosen to go to war in Iraq in a sideshow that's cost too many American and Iraqi lives.

[kevin]

al-Qaeda is just part of the problem. Saddam was openly making payments to the families of suicide bombers. That's state sponsored terrorism. 550 metric tons of yellow cake seem a bit problematic.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/index.html

Maybe you can believe Al Gore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64

Today's Democrat would rather fight Republicans than terrorists.

[Angel]

hiya Kev..i cant stomach watching him..hope u received my tb's!

[kevin]

Angel,
Your trackback is up. Thanks for stopping by.

[diogenes]

I'm not a physicist, but those 550 tons of yellow cake were supposedly inventoried long before we invaded Iraq. According to what I've read, it would take considerable processing with equipment that Saddam didn't have and wasn't procuring in order to turn it into weapons-grade uranium.

And Saddam was making payments to suicide bombers. Swell. Is Anerica the world's policemen, going after any form of terrorist found anywhere in the world, or were we suppposedly going after Al Qaeda and OBL for the horror they inflicted on 9/11?

Face facts: we ginned up a base to go to war with Iraq so that Bushie would have a chance to be a "wartime" President because he was convinced that being a wartime President is the best way of earning your way into history books. I'm not saying there weren't some tangential reasons to war against Saddam, but they were trivial compared to why we were/are in Afghanistan. Iraq was a war of choice, not a war of necessity, and was made worse because it turned our attention away form the war of necessity we had already started in Afghanistan.

And Bushie and the Big Dick will almst certainly get their place in history books... just not nearly as complimentary to them as they had hoped.

[Bill]

Re O'Rielly's interview of Obama, Tuesday, 9Sept.2008 Subject: Obama;s Chicago Friends. Why did O'Rielly give Obama a pass on his ties to Chicago Slumlord Rezko? Amazing omission-undercut seriousness of entire interview.

[kevin]

Bill,
I would like to hear Obama have to answer that question as well, but the video in this post is just the first of several interviews. So we'll have to wait to see what gets asked.

[kevin]

diogenes,

What WAS Saddam going to do with the yellowcake? What about the 19 UN resolutions that Iraq violated? Why did Iraqi television play the attacks over and over again set to beautiful music? why are there murals made in tribute to 9/11? Why give that evil dictator the benefit of the doubt?