Obama says to FOX about Petraeus: 'my job as Commander in Chief to set the mission'
By John Amato Saturday Apr 26, 2008 1:27pm
Barack Obama made his first appearance which stirred some controversy on FNS with Chris Wallace (ending the Obama Watch clock) and answered the Petraeus question from Wallace about his role in the Iraq war. Bush has tried to shift complete responsibility of the Iraq war to Gen. Petraeus and off his own shoulders with the "I listen to the generals" routine. That is until he doesn't like what they say and he fires them. Wallace asked Obama if he'd confirm Petraeus and he said he would, but that since he'd be the Commander in Chief---he sets the mission and not "the Generals."
Download | play 
Download | play
I will listen to Gen Petraeus given the experience he has accumulated over the last several years. It would be stupid of me to ignore what he has to say. But it is my job as President, it would be my job as Commander in Chief to set the mission. To make the strategic decision in light of the problems we're having in Afghanistan, in light of the problems we're having in Pakistan, the fact that al-Qaeda is strengthening as our national intelligence estimates have indicated and I have a whole host of tasks and I have to worry about the military has no strategic reserve right now...
Wallace tried to get Obama to say he'd fire Petraeus because that would create some big headlines, but he didn't bite. I don't remember Wallace all that concerned when Bush replaced a General that didn't agree with him...
Greg Sargent: "Obama Doesn't "Take Fox On," After All."
Login or Register to post comments.
so good so far!
what a load of shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
theater of the absurd...although he did mention the fallon which is itself amazing!!!!
im for obama!!
This has to be consider as a historic event!
nobody saying frist on the first response!
Forth!
"I don’t remember Wallace all that concerned when Bush replaced a General that didn’t agree with him…"
That's because MSM has crowned Petraeus as General Untouchable.
All hail Petraeus! Petraeus can do no wrong!
Where is Britt The Shit Fumes Humes when you need him?
pretty light, softball interview. wallace genuinely seemed to like Obama.
obama was ever the smooth operator, and his footwork kept him from ever being entangled in the fox web of lies and smears.
obama's got this in the bag. its time for Hillary to concede.
The motley crew on the Fox "news" is a trip? Chris Wallace, but, but, but, but, not to mention Shit Fumes and Billy Kristol. What a joke. Obama is right. We don't live in a military dictatorship, although sometimes I'm not so sure. It is politically incorrect to be critical of the U.S. Military, but after they we busy playing War Games on Nine Eleven, after they cut and ran in Afghanistan/Pakistan to attack Iraq, after all of the smart bombs and depleted uranium they have spread through the middle east, they claim they are just following orders. That didn't cut the mustard after WW2. I don't support the troops because they don't defend the US Constitution.
I was hoping that Obama didn't show up on FOX. I heard that the FOX station is actually showing sign of trouble rating. They laid off some of the research team, I didn't even know they had one.
As Admiral Halsey said, when you are in command, COMMAND! Gen. Petraeus shouldn't have appeared before congress, dubya should have, the president supposedly sets policy. When you are President of the United States, don't hide behind your generals.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, or in dubya's case, just leave, disappear, GO!
check this out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
I just woke up so I'm just watching the interview now on DVR.
I just watched the "distractions" part of the segment and I'm SOOOOO HAPPY that he finally has some solid answers to respond to these ridiculous questions. Taking a second look, I probably do think that he was worn out and tired over the last three weeks when he was really off his game. But at least during the "distractions" segment, there was nothing he said that they media can spin to make him look bad. If they actually do their job, I think he clarified many of his positions that EVERYONE was confused about.
Tird @ 5:
Exactly, they're treating him like Napoleon. Except that his first large scale battle is Waterloo.
I have nothing against Petraeus because when you read between the lines of what he says, he's just a solider caught in a bad situation trying to do his job. At this point, someone IN uniform has to speak out against the civilians.
Also, in terms of the FOX Watch, I mean based on the type of campaign he's running and how he wants some disaffected Republicans to vote for him in November, I think Obama has to go on FOX News every now and then (like once a month or once a quarter). If he says that he'll speak to our enemies, then that means both those foreign and domestic.
He just has to go on FOX and deal with them like Feingold deals with them (100% on his terms), and not how Hillary and Rendell did over the last month by serving them up sound bites.
The problem is that Hillary has already succeeded in having Obama painted as Obambi or as a "girlie man" -- so he no longer appears authentically tough enough as commander in chief.
Thanks a lot Hillary!
I just finished watching the whole interview over at Raw Story and I have to say that Obama carried himself extremely well.
Isn't it amazing how far the Presidency
has moved away from the issues that
are important to the American People.
It's like a wonderland of the ill moral.
We didn't appreciate the Presidents warning
back in January 17, 1961
We have been lost ever since!
you mean David "ass licking chicken shit" patreaus ? the "architect of the surge" ? the man deserves firing, the surge has failed miserably.
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
Petraeus wasn't the architect of the surge. It was those guys from AEI and Kagan in particular.
Dang, I don't like this answer.
Big problem is, he committed to voting for Petraeus for CentCom commander.
This is an egregious problem, created of course by Bush. Petraeus has been focused on a narrow view of Iraq success, and has been demanding military resources for Iraq regardless of strategy in CentCom, let alone worldwide strategy. I don't think any other president would make this nomination, the standard is to kick field commanders up to staff positions in the Pentagon.
Obama should have at least said, "I will base my vote to confirm Petraeus on whether I am convinced he can serve the national interest, which may require reducing resources in Iraq to emphasize al Queda in Afghanistan. I haven't seen that yet."
He should have also said, "The old rules don't apply when dealing with Bush appointees. I will remove any military appointments I think were made for political reasons by Bush."
Guess he didn't want to offend his hosts.
would you replace him???
what, like bush has done over and over???
fuck you wallace
you and your gotcha questions
come on john, post the one where he asks obama why he hates white people
to number 7 Faux has a research staff ?that would mean that they use facts say it isn't so we all know they don't need no stinkin facts.
As for chimpy heading anything he wouldn't know how
Mister Anderson @ 13:
Mmmm no .. wrong ... you give up that right when you put on the uniform.
If a General has a problem with civilian control of the military then he is in the wrong job. If a General wants to dissent he does it in private .. and if it doesnt work .. he resigns and THEN comments.
This is not a military dictatorship .. and that is what you get when you have Generals making policy ... Truman understood that. Oddly enough, so does Bush... although it is about the only thing about the military he does seem to understand.
Crap .. i hate it when I don't preview
[I think I FIFY-Sitemonitor]
Brealistic @ 18:
[Deleted. Refers to a deleted off topic post-Sitemonitor]
john @ 11:
there is more Prescott Bush tried to get Smedley to help overthrow FDR, this is while Prescott Bush was laundering money for Der Fuhrer...
this is not conspiracy theory stuff
Bush Launders Money for Hitler
BBC Article about Prescott Bush
Brealistic @ 18:
[Deleted. Refers to a deleted off topic post-Sitemonitor]
Brealistic @ 18:
[Deleted. Refers to a deleted off topic post-Sitemonitor]
Clinton didn't buy their bullsh*t. Bush Jr. did.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
Chris Wallace is a dick
I'm disappointed, unless there's something in the full interview; I didn't see that.
I wanted Barack to say that the "Bush listens to the Generals" line is a fairy tale, just like Amato did in the write-up for the video clip.
Petraeus didn't come up with the idea for the surge, he followed orders from the commander in chief. Like I said in comment number 19, the surge was the brainchild of Fred Kagan and others at the American enterprise institute, a right wing think tank.
Some very important issues came out in this interview like he is for tort reform and deregualtion among other things.
Get to know the real Obama:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/27/transcript-obama-on-fns/
marko @ 26:
Our country is so fucked. I think of moving, but when this country sinks, it will take the rest of the world with it.
Have a nice day.
I was slightly worried when I heard Obama was going on, but after hearing, I could imagine plenty more Republicans who watch this good-for-nothing channel might swing to him.
An excellent interview. Obama knows what it is to be a President. The military command staff does not make foreign policy. That is the job for the President and Congress to decide. The Generals simply carry out the missions given to them just as any other Government arm. If the political leadership decides that a shift in forces is needed elsewhere for some other crisis, regardless as to how Iraq is progressing, then General Petraeus is to comply with those orders. Bush's own incompetence has lead to this. He has hid his own failures behind Petraeus for so long that people now look to Petraeus to lead instead of Bush. This needs to change and from the looks of it, Obama is the man that can change that around.
Rob (Formerly In) Toronto @ 23:
Mmmm no .. wrong ... you give up that right when you put on the uniform.
If a General has a problem with civilian control of the military then he is in the wrong job. If a General wants to dissent he does it in private .. and if it doesnt work .. he resigns and THEN comments.
This is not a military dictatorship .. and that is what you get when you have Generals making policy ... Truman understood that. Oddly enough, so does Bush... although it is about the only thing about the military he does seem to understand.
If General Petreus speaks out against Bush then he will get replaced. Right now, General Petreus is in a position where he can somewhat mediate the damage Bush is inflicting to the men and women under his command. General Petreus's loyalty is not to Bush and it is not to the American people; General Petreus's loyalty is to the men and women under his command. The death count in Iraq has been low; becuase, the generals on the ground understand their need is to protect the people under them and that the bigger political issues back home are the responsibilty of the American people not the American Army. The military opposing the political structure is the equivellant of a group of dentists opposing the Pope. It's the American publics responsibilty to sort out the political mess. It's the Army's job to make sure they bring as many of the kids home alive as is humanly possible. They can do more good telling a convoy to not take a certain route than they can by openly challenging a President. If they get fired then they are out of the loop and who knows what kind of a sycophant bush will put in charge. The last thing our troops need are commanders that want to do Bush's bidding.
john @ 7:
Keep dreaming....all this shows is what a waffler Obama is....do you remember he said....NO FOX NEWS INTERVIEWS....does that qualify as a flip flop or an outright lie by Obama. He and his campaign must really be in a world of hurt for him to go on the air with Fox. Obama, panderer extraordinnaire.
I liked the cordial interchange, at least Wallace recognizes the next President of the United States: President Obama!
john @ 7:
Whatever that means.
Anyway you're right about Hillary, as much as I love her, this is politics and she has lost and should step down.
joshdavis @ 35:
Obama could say and do everything wrong and those in the tank for him would say what a great job he did. He is surrounded by sheeple who tell him whatever he wants to hear...one more way he reminds me of George W. Bush.
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
getalife @ 33:
nice blanket statement
so he agrees with some deregulation...and some deregulation was good...for both biz and the economy
fuck all clintonista fear mongers
Jeannie See @ 15:
Get back to me when he learns to connect with middle america.
Brealistic @ 18:
[Deleted. Refers to a deleted off topic post-Sitemonitor]
PssttCmere @ 43:
if middle america refuses to connect with him, and chooses to connect with mcdodohead...fuck em...they deserve the america they get
Didn't George W. Bush fire all the generals who cautioned against invading Iraq?
Chris Wallace is a shameful human being. It would've been nice to see Obama call him out on his bullshit, but I guess it would've been too much.
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
john @ 7:
I thought that Wallace looked a little intimidated by Obama at times. He wasn't getting the responses he thought he would get.
Bush only listens to generals that agree with the position he's already taken. Listening to people who may give you counter opinions is a foreign concept to him and to his cheerleaders on Fox "News". That's why Obama's position that he would listen to Petraeus even if Petraeus gives him counter advice is so perplexing to Wallace. The bushapologists can't conceive of a leader who doesn't surround himself with sycophantic yes men.
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
Brealistic @ 51:
[Deleted. Refers to a deleted off topic post-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
While Fox News is overtly engaged in "advocacy journalism" for the neocon/GOP cause, as the New York Times pointed out, all the networks are engaged in Bush regime orchestrated propaganda, using so called experts as "“message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions.”" It is no accident that al-Jazeera is not being carried on any of the major cable or satellite providers. The government knows full well that democracy functions best in an environment where there is "an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will prevail" - a marketplace where there is a "wide diversity of viewpoints from a multiplicity of sources." Media consolidation is a means of curbing such diversity of viewpoints, with the intentional purpose and the effect of making the democratic process function poorly. The broadcast media itself has nothing to say about how they have evolved to a comparable credibility with Pravda under the Soviet Union.
As we saw on ABC, no corporate media can be counted on to be neutral. The media is desperately trying to focus attention on anything except the economy, the war, and health care.
1.) Economy - Isn't it common sense that if we, as a nation, continue to borrow and borrow endlessly, for ever and ever, that the only way to pay it back is to print money, which will dilute the currency and devalue the dollar? We had projections of endless surpluses under Clinton, and Americans voted to throw it all away. On free trade, why are we continuing to buy the corporate media line that laissez-faire trade works in the face of $700B deficits? One consequence of this policy is that the $600 stimulus checks to arrive shortly will have a diminished effect on the economy because consumers are likely to buy a product manufactured in another country. Meanwhile, we as Democrats chucked out of our primaries candidates who would have ended free trade. Isn't fighting a war on credit damaging our economy, in part, because the borrowed money isn't spent within the borders of the U.S. ?
2.) Iraq War - Hasn't the Iraq war destroyed our readiness to deploy elsewhere if trouble arises? Shouldn't we have kept the focus on al-Qaeda terrorists based in Afghanistan? Didn't the media propagandize the American public into supporting this war using administration shills and administration talking points? When we were told that we would use "shock 'n awe" to induce the Iraqis into accepting "liberation", didn't that really mean that we would use weapons of mass destruction to murder thousands of Iraqis in order to terrorize the Iraqis into accepting occupation? Kofi Annan has said this is an illegal war. So, aren't we liable to Iraq for damages as Iraq was held liable for its invasion of Kuwait? Aren't we hypocrites if we complain should some other nation attack some country on a pretext, such as China and Taiwan? Maybe China thinks that al-Qaeda is holed up on Taiwan, isn't "thinking" a good enough reason for war? Didn't the Iraq war legitimize the terrorists' agenda?
3.) Health Care - Isn't health care costs growing faster then the economy is growing mean that at some point there will not be the ability to pay for health care. Aren't there different approaches in the western democracies that provide comparable health care at a cheaper cost? Couldn't we evaluate the different systems employed in Europe and Japan and copy the one likely to do the best job for Americans, as Ross Perot suggested back in 1992?
The media is going to want to focus on flag pins and preachers, and bowling abilities and so forth to keep the public focus away from the substantiative issues of the day. Our answer to patriotism is that the true patriot supports the constitution. They haven't yet bottled up the internet, but they're working on it. So, at least this year, we can keep the focus on the issues. Maybe I'll get into a little sign making on top of it.
I'd have to agree with other posters that Obama shouldn't have interviewed on Fox, since they are overtly in the business of advocacy journalism.
Brealistic @ 48:
[Deleted. Refers to a deleted off topic post-Sitemonitor]
Why would Obama refuse an unmoderated debate, especially if he believes that he has better ideas?
Because he isn't stupid.
Brealistic @ 18:
[Deleted. Refers to a deleted off topic post-Sitemonitor]
Brealistic @ 18:
[Deleted. Refers to a deleted off topic post-Sitemonitor]
Brealistic @ 51:
[Deleted. Refers to a deleted off topic post-Sitemonitor]
Brealistic @ 53:
I can see you're Concerned. I'm not.
WinSmith @ 46:
yes he did for the most part. Every experienced military commander that I have known was always cautious especially when they didn't know exactly what they were up against. If things looked to good to be true then something usually was wrong. In other words, a trap or an ambush was waiting for them. That caution comes with experience and its obvious that the Bush Administration ignored this wisdom and ran head on into a quagmire. Now, they are totally reliant upon Petraeus to fix their image.
hey Obamaites where's the outrage????!!!!! your God went on FOX for fucks sake, when Clinton did that you basically called her every name in the book for it, hypocrites.
Brealistic @ 18:
[Deleted. Refers to a deleted off topic post-Sitemonitor]
Mister Anderson @ 14:
Excellent point!! Barack did a splendid job of representing his views and ideals to this very polarized network of propaganda. But he did it with respect and courage.
The Democratic Party DOES need to meet with enemies, both foreign and DOMESTIC...and this is one example of what Barack is willing to do.
I'm proud of this young man. If Clinton ends up with the nomination, I certainly look for Barack the next time around. However, I prefer he gets the nomination this time.
Remember folks, whoever gets the nomination and the office, they are going to be facing an almost insurmountable task. Failure over all is a strong possibility, but righting the ship is a MUST! We are ready to go under after eight years of this criminal and disgraceful administration.
An economy in the tank, record foreclosures, rising fuel and food prices, world-wide there are food riots, and manuevers to trade protectionism...
Sounds like the lead-up to World War II...
Soon the candidates wil be arguing about the nomination
That the other one deserves it.
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
erick @ 62:
Well, unlike Hillary, Obama doesn't stoop to the low of Republican hitting points against his own party. At least he knows how to compose himself and treat his 'competition' with respect instead of harping on attacks such as oh I don't know, the Bosnia lie.
Brealistic @ 53:
[Deleted. Refers to a deleted off topic post-Sitemonitor]
why wouldn't Obama fire him> He's a political pawn in the military.
erick @ 62:
Since Hillary has been carrying the water for Faux and McCain, Obama had to take them on on their own turf. If she'd stay away from Republican talking points and strategies, Obama wouldn't have to go on Fox.
fuck all clintonista fear mongers
no FUCK all YOU Obamaite lemmings
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
I was hoping that somehow Obama would make a comparison of Faux News and the Daily Show. He might have said some thing like, "well I stooped low enough to be on the Daily Show, why not stoop a little lower and be on Fox?" That would have pissed off Chris Wallace!
TM @ 55:
Actually, you miscounted by 69. 70 top Clinton Donors have switched to Obama.
Brealistic @ 66:
[Deleted. Refers to a deleted off topic post-Sitemonitor]
Brealistic @ 72:
[Deleted. Refers to a deleted off topic post-Sitemonitor]
faux noise defines the PA vote demographic as the American demographic. Middle America does not connect with Obama? clintonistas follow the distortion and Obama's vote/states/delegate lead is an alternate reality. Who is delusional?
erick @ 71:
Resorting to fowl language just shows that you are unable to present a coherent argument - debating logically and expressing your points is a good way to change someones viewpoint, but attacking them and ridiculing them with 'colourful' language is truly showing your frustration as well as your contempt for thinking individuals.
slippy hussein toad @ 74:
Sorry, I was talking about one of the recent ones, just using that as an example - thank you for correcting me.
shiloh @ 10:
Bush's problem is that he has no credibility with the American people left, so he has to hide behind a general in order to make his clusterf*ck policy in Iraq look plausible.
speaking of "teh Surge"
Baghdad Green Zone blasted under cover of storm
Sun Apr 27, 2008 3:21pm EDT
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Militants bombarded Baghdad's Green Zone with rockets on Sunday, taking advantage of the cover of a blinding dust storm to launch one of the heaviest strikes in weeks on the fortified compound.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL0434078820080427
Brealistic @ 66:
[Deleted. Refers to a deleted off topic post-Sitemonitor]
erick @ 62:
Here's the difference. Clinton went willingly. Obama made Fox News get on their knees and beg him for an interview.
67 TM
Still using that "Bosnia Lie" line?
Hillary was in a war zone, and probably heard some military jargon about the threat either first or second hand, possibly even last.
Civilian confusion over military jargon could lead from the threat of sniper fire, which is generally sporadic as they move often to avoid detection, to actually the direct line of fire in which case a plane full of dignitaries would be rerouted.
Why do so many Obama supporters use lines that sound like they were taken from rash limpballs?
uncle joe hussein mccarthy @ 45:
I haven't decided yet which candidate I'm for and since I consider myself to be "middle america" he did make a connection with me. Does that mean I'm ready to throw my vote at him yet? No, it doesn't. I wouldn't vote for McCranky for any reason.
Now, now, temper, temper.
Keep in mind, you are blindly trusting a Senator.
Get real people, they have not earned our trust.
Brealistic @ 51:
[Deleted. Refers to a deleted off topic post-Sitemonitor]
OK, I didn't actually WATCH this on FOX. (I'm not sure that channel even works on my TV.) Did anyone else here see it?
I'm curious whether this digital video capture is the reason, or if FOX deliberately played with their lighting and/or video settings to make Obama appear darker than usual - particularly around the eyes and mouth.
I'll browse the thread to see if anyone else noticed this...