When will Obama admit he was wrong to oppose the Surge in Iraq?

Question

With victory within site, he's still has his head in the sand and acting like we're spinning our wheels. Is he too arrogant to admit when he was wrong?

Answer 1

He won’t because he does not believe in winners. He does not believe in excellence of the individual, unless it is himself. Besides, he has lots of people who support him, only because they think he will withdraw from Iraq.

The surge is working, and I am sure that this news pains him.

Answer 2

You don't admit to doing something wrong when what you did wasn't wrong.

Answer 3

He is still hoping the terrorists will gain a victory by some method, he just cannot admit he was wrong, his anti war traitors would turn on him.

Answer 4

When the Reps. admit they were wrong to invade Iraq in the first place. There were no weapons of mass destruction, etc.

Answer 5

When h**l freezes over?

Answer 6

Today. Look for the news on Ramadi.

Answer 7

Obama opposed the war from the start.  It would be hard to say OK I opposed the war, but now that we are in it I support more war.  

People have a tendency to assume results come solely from intended actions.  

I would posit some of the calm in Iraq (relatively speaking) comes from the fact that the ethnic cleansing has largely taken place and the locals are running out of easy targets to kill.

Al Qaeda has been so savage in their conduct that the locals have turned on them.

Iran has likely tamped down the violence fearing it could spin out of control.

The surge may not be as effective as we believe, there are other factors.

Answer 8

When McCain admits he was wrong to support the start of the Iraq war.

Answer 9

who said he was wrong, son?

Answer 10

Just goes too show you how misguided and ignorant he is, that he can't see the plain truth in front of his face.  He still hasn't taken a solid stand on anything, and all we get is mindless rhetoric!!!  Details escape him, as is the election!!!  

Answer 11

Naw Hill just spin it to make it seem like he was right the whole time. That is what liberals do why do you think they do so bad in presidential elections?

Answer 12

He will never admit to being wrong. He still stands by his cowardly "turn tail and run" strategy.  

Answer 13

If the insurgents did not go into hiding the surge worked? They will come out when the troops leave.

Answer 14

This is a losing battle, he won't unless he can spin it to take credit. We're not dumb, we see and hear reality unlike some others.

Answer 15

"With victory within site"?

It would be utterly shameful and heinous to declare a misguided war where NO WMD were found and NO WMD existed as

VICTORY WITHIN SITE.

Answer 16

Never, just like he and Biden will never admit that they were wrong to fund something they claimed to oppose.

Answer 17

why would he do that when even the bush admin is looking for a timetable for withdrawl... maybe you should get more informed...

Answer 18

Can you say never? He is on too big an ego trip to admit anything.

Answer 19

Bush declared victory in Iraq a few years ago, if the war has been won why are we still there? Arrogant Bush and Mc Cain

Answer 20

God Bless President Obama

Answer 21

Just going to get this out of the way - it's spelled sight man, get it right.

Now, onto your question.  First of all, we're still not clear on when we're leaving Iraq.  In fact the only reason we're working on a way out is because Iraqis have demanded it.  Second, there's no proof that the surge did it for us.  Extra troops did not bring down the death toll, but rather the wearing down of the insurgents by the troops already there was enough.  All they were was an extra bit to try and make it faster.  He doesn't have to admit he was wrong because he wasn't - the surge, by all accounts, was still an unnecessary waste of military and economic resources.  If you want to try proving me wrong, I'd love to see an actual source that specifically says the surge is the one to have changed the course of the war and backs that up.

Answer 22

I sincerely do not understand how anyone can say that we are "near victory". What is it that you see that shows any sign of victory? It isn't even close...and, truth be told, I don't even know if it is a possibility.  

Answer 23

You mean the surge that made it necessary for the U.S. to keep the same 130,000 troops in Iraq that were there before the surge?  You mean the surge that left a situation so unstable that McCain says any discussion of a timetable for troop withdrawal is the same as surrender?  You mean that surge?

OK, sorry for the rant.  Seriously, so many changes happened in Iraq at the same time as the surge that we will never know for sure if violence would have been reduced without adding more U.S. troops.  

I believe Obama should give credit to Petraeus for radically changing the strategy in Iraq.  Adding U.S. troops was a part of that strategy, but it was certainly not the only thing.

Answer 24

when McBush admits they were wrong to go in (and lied too).

Answer 25

He wasn't wrong, my friend. We never should have been in Iraq in the first place.

If "victory is in site(sic)", then why won't McCain agree to a timetable to leave?

Answer 26

He is too proud to ever let anyone know that he is wrong... but we smart Americans know!

Answer 27

I didn't know we were at war.

Answer 28

Obviously so; he will probably never admit it and he is very wrong not to admit it. That has already hurt him almost as bad as the gun toting, bible holding bitter people remark.

Answer 29

When will those that think the war in Iraq is a just war admit that we were lied to prior to the invasion.

Or that we do a disservice to our men and women in uniform using them as than cannon fodder. For nothing more than the ousting of a tyrant that our government could no longer control. Sure the surge worked but would we even have had to go to that level if we had not invaded in the first place? I think not.

By the way where is Osama Bin Laden. Didn't ol' Georgie boy claim he was going to track him down.

Answer 30

As Obama has said, the surge has done some good, but it wasn't not the only path to victory, and was a costly path in terms of death and destruction.

Nuking Iraq would also work, but that wouldn't make it right.  

Answer 31

Just because you may oppose the war, you never oppose funding for the soldiers who have to fight it.  They are already dying needlessly, why make it even worse and keep them from protecting themselves as well as possible?  Is the President too arrogant to admit he was wrong?

Add: If victory was so near, why is it that my husband and his unit have to keep going back and forth over there? What victory are you referring to?  Is that the same type of victory, as those weapons of mass destruction that were over there?