President obama meet the press sept 7 2008

Meet the Press - Obama & Flag - Sept 7th True or False?

president obama meet the press sept 7 2008

Then-Senator Barack Obama said on "Meet The Press" in , "As I've said this on the September 7, airing of "Meet The Press" – the. I know, it's Why do we care about something that was allegedly said by Barack Obama during the presidential campaign? Well, it's. Circulating online, fictitious statements attributed to President Obama EST, Televised "Meet the Press" THE THEN Senator Obama was asked . nor is the claim that Obama uttered them during an alleged September 7,

Or John McCain said, but the conditions are in place, and Anbar province, where you have been, where there had been so much difficulty, the Iraqis now have taken over that province. We have brigades that have Sunnis and Shia serving side by side But it's a process, and it's beginning, and the surge made that possible, did it not?

The surge helped make that--what made is possible in Anbar province is they did what I'd suggested two and a half years ago: They turned over and they said to the Sunnis in Anbar province, "We promise you, don't worry, you're not going to have any Shia in here. There's going to be no national forces in here. We're going to train your forces to help you fight al-Qaeda. The awakening was not an awakening by us, it was an awakening of the Sunnis in Anbar province willing to fight.

Cooperating with the Shia. Cooperating with--no, they weren't cooperating with Shiite. They didn't cooperate with the Shiites.

Once the awakening got under way. No, they didn't cooperate with the Shiites. It's still--it's a big problem, Tom. You got--we're paying bucks a month to each of those guys. Now the problem has been and the, and the promise was made by Maliki that they would be integrated into the overall military. That's a process that is beginning in fits and starts now, but it's far from over. Far from--look, the bottom line here is that it's--let's--the surge is over. Here's the real point. Whether or not the surge worked is almost irrelevant now.

We're in a new deal. What is the administration doing? They're doing what Barack Obama has suggested over 14 months ago, turn responsibility over and draw down our troops. We're about to get a deal from the president of the United States and Maliki, the head of the Iraqi government, that's going to land on my desk as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee saying we're going to set a timeline to draw down our forces.

The only guy in America out of step is John McCain. John McCain's saying no timeline. They've signed on to Barack Obama's proposal. But the surge helped make that timeline possible, did it not? Well, it did help make it possible.

But it's not the reason. Look, they also--take a look at the analysis, Tom. They say the reason why there's such success against the, the insurgency is because of now small, very well trained counterinsurgency units. It's not the numbers, it's the type of units that are in there.

What I was arguing about before was we have the wrong units in there. We have the wrong kind of force in there. We weren't focused on counterinsurgency. And so look--but, but, but the bottom line is we can argue about whether the surge was good, bad or indifferent. Let's assume it was all good. The truth of the matter is, what do we do now? What's John McCain going to do when he's president?

He says he will not sign on to a timeline, number one. Number two, he has no, no idea, no suggestion how he's going to deal with the neighbors. He has no idea how he's going to deal with Iraq. He has no idea how he's going to deal with Syria. He has no idea how he's going to deal with Turkey. We have laid out a clear plan. But two years ago you were the principal author, along with Les Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations, of an entirely different kind of plan.

Barack Obama On Meet the Press Sept. 7, ? - You Decide Politics

You were promoting heavily the idea of a confederation, or a partition. That's exact--not, not a partition. You guys keep saying that. It was never a partition. Or the--we'll make it a confederation. That's what it was. But the--but terms of real political terms, it would quickly become a partition. Absolutely, positively not true. You think that the Kurds in the north and the, and the, and the Sunnis and the Shia would just say, "Oh, we can all get across--get together across lines," without having a prescription There was a central government that had power, but there was more power given to the localities like exist right now.

Tom, tell me, what's changed up among, among the Kurds? You still not--cannot, under the Iraqi constitution, send an Iraqi army up there. You still not--cannot fly an Iraqi flag up there unless you get permission. Tell me what's happened in Anbar province.

'Meet the Press' transcript for Sept. 7, 2008

It is de facto exactly what I said. Everything that's working in Iraq has been the bottom up approach, not a strong central government imposing. And the truth of the matter is the only way you're going to make this--sustain it, the question is, how do we leave and leave a stable Iraq behind?

Without a political settlement, Tom, we're going to be back there in another year or two or three or five. But are you encouraged they're moving toward a political settlement? Yes, I am encouraged, because they're doing the things I suggested. They're localizing it, Tom. That's why it is moving toward some mild possibility of a resolution. And if you were to now follow up--if John McCain as president, would follow up like we will as president and say, "OK, how do you get the rest of the neighborhood in the deal?

And every--you know, this talk about how this has been such a great success, look where we are now in the Middle East. You now have a Shia-dominated government close to Iran.

When Ahmadinejad comes, he kisses him on both cheek and seeks permission. So give me a break about how this is such a great political success. We have the bravest soldiers in the world. I said at the time of the surge, if we sent introops we could tamp this down immediately, shut it down and end all violence. But that would not solve the problem. What do we do when we leave? And that's the hard work, and that requires the region as well.

And you don't hear a word from John about that--John McCain. You don't hear a word from Sarah Palin about that. But you do now from the administration. The administration's now signing on to Barack Obama's plan to set a timeline, to--not the exact plan, but to set a timeline to draw down American troops. Five years from now, do you think Iraq will have relative stability and democratic principles in a central government?

If there is an Obama-Biden administration, yeah. If there is a John McCain administration and Sarah Palin, I think it's probably not going to happen, because John does not view this in terms of the region. I never heard him speak about how he's going to integrate Iraq into the region where you have these competing interests that exist. And I, I, I just--now, John may have an idea. I've never heard it.

And by the way, that Biden proposal, 75 senators voted for it, including the majority of the Republican Party.

But the Iraqi government didn't like the idea. Well, the Iraqi government--Maliki didn't, but the rest of the government liked it. But he is the head of the government. Yeah--by the way, it is their country, but he's the head of the government, but he's the head of the government whose popularity is very much in question, and the election itself.

You had a whole lot of people--look, here's going to be the key, Tom. They're about to have regional elections. Let's see how they go. Let's see how the regional elections go. Pray God they'll go well for the sake of all of our sons that are there. Let's move on to some domestic issues. The country's waking up this morning to the news that the federal government's about to move in on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

They're in serious trouble at the moment, but they're in a free fall, in effect. The government reorganized them, it appears that they're going to pump in some fresh capital on a quarterly basis, but shareholders will have their shares greatly diluted by this move.

But the preferred shareholders--China and other governments that have invested in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--will not suffer, because the government will prop them up. Well, no, it's not fair, but I don't think that's what's going to happen.

I talked to Secretary Paulson last night. I'm not at liberty to lay out what he told me, because he should announce it today. But there's three principles that have to play here for this to work, in my view. One, you have to make sure that you help homeowners and stabilize, at the same time, financial institutions.

president obama meet the press sept 7 2008

Secondly, you got to make sure that you're not bailing out shareholders vs. And the third thing you got to do is make sure that they're still in a position to be able to continue to lend, because there is a need for them to continue to have this elasticity of being able to deal with the market.

Now, what I've heard the outline of, I am--I want to wait till I see all the detail, but if it meets those three principles, then I think it has a great chance of succeeding. And as I understand it, whatever proposal Secretary Paulson is going to make is a proposal to get us over this hump of instability and uncertainty.

It's not an official reorganization. It will be left to the next administration and the Congress to make those judgments.

president obama meet the press sept 7 2008

All investors suffer equally? We'll see what the plan is. We want to talk a little bit about both campaigns now describing themselves as an agent of change.

Senator Obama has been hard on the case about Washington lobbyists and their influence. Let's share with you and our viewers just some of the ads and the statements that he's made about all of that, if we can. And suddenly, he's the change agent. He says, "I'm going to tell those lobbyists that their days of running Washington are over.

Is he going to tell his campaign chairman, who's one of the biggest corporate lobbyists in Washington? Is he going to tell his campaign manager, who was one of the biggest corporate lobbyists in Washington?

Who is it that he's going to tell that change is coming? I mean, come on. They must think you're stupid. Now Senator Obama is out with an ad as well, pretty much the same theme. Let's listen to that, if we can. Excerpt from political ad SEN. I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message. But America is listening, not just Democrats. The Republicans and independents who've lost trust in their government but want to believe again.

I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on the lobbyists and I have won. They have not funded my campaign and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.

That is Senator Barack Obama during the primary campaign. He was campaigning in Iowa at the time. In your hometown newspaper this morning, there's a big headline, "Banking on Biden. To some, Joe Biden's makeover as a blue collar warrior is slightly at odds with the blue blood company that he keeps in the corporate state. Not only is Biden a neighbor to wealthy and powerful company titans and DuPont family members, he's thrown his weight behind issues and legislation that benefitted Delaware's big banking interests.

They cite his longstanding ties to trial lawyers and lobbyists and a taste for pork-barrel spending At the same time, you were fighting for a bankruptcy bill that MBNA really wanted to get passed through the Senate, making it much tougher for everyone to file bankruptcy. Senator Obama was opposed to the bill. Among other things you couldn't, in fact, claim that you had a problem because of big medical bills.

You voted against an amendment that would call for a warning on predatory lending. You also called for--you opposed efforts to strengthen the protection of people in bankruptcy.

This has been an issue that you're heard about before. Your son was working for the company at the same time. In retrospect, wasn't it inappropriate for someone like you in the middle of all this to have your son collecting money from this big credit card company while you were on the floor protecting its interests? My son graduated from Yale Law School. He came home to work for a bank.

Surprise, surprise, number one. Number two, this is the second largest employer in the state. All the contributions added up make up less than 2 percent of the contributions I've received. Number three, I blocked the bank--first three bankruptcy bills that the credit card companies wanted. I would not support a bankruptcy bill until they did three things.

Obama Explains National Anthem Stance?

They put women and children first. Every single social welfare agency relating to alimony and child support supported this bill. Eight-five senators supported this bill. So try as people might to make to this out. You want to know whether or not I am in the pocket of the corporate lobbyists, which makes it apply--sounds like it's right here. Ask the people in the industry here how happy they are. How happy the DuPont company is with me and the Hercules Corporation that I would not sign on the asbestos bill.

How happy they are with me--look, the fact of the matter is, that I have had an entire career that no one has every questioned whether or not anybody has influenced me, number one. No group has ever, ever been involved with more than--contributing more than 2 percent to my campaign. I'm listed as the 98th or 99th of the poorest guy in the Senate in terms of net worth.

I have a year career of actually, of being viewed, at least in my state, as being independent. And so you can take individual votes and you can talk about them, but they're totally out of context, Tom. But the fact is, it was not just the Republicans. It's your home town newspaper, consumers groups, a number of other people thought that you went way too far in bankruptcy protection and cracking down on those people who may not get the relief that they need.

Well, and most people thought differently. But how come the social welfare agencies supported it, Tom? Are they a bunch of radical, corporate whatever?

How come or 85 United States senators supported it? Now, Barack voted a different way. I respect his vote. The question is, is the glass half-full or half-empty? Fewer than 10 percent of all the filers in bankruptcy are even affected. And look, the big issue people have is what about people who go bankrupt because of their healthcare bills. That's why we need national health insurance. Are we going to say to every doctor and hospital, "Look, you get to write off your bill, get to write off your bill because people can't pay.

And so look, and everybody else voted--not everybody. The vast majority of the members of the Congress voted that way. So if you get to Washington as president and vice president, given the promises that Senator Obama has made, would you look at situations like you just went through, which has raised some questions, where sons work for big banks that have interests in states My son has never spoken.

I voted for every campaign reform that's existed with regard to lobbyists.

president obama meet the press sept 7 2008

I voted for every single solitary proposal to make it tougher. And if you ask around here, ask--try to find how many lobbyists have actually--I probably have spoken to lobbyists, but I don't--it's not a practice I have. If they want to see me, the CEO has to come and see me from the company. There is absolutely no proof that he ever made such statements.

In fact the proof is to the contrary. You can see for yourself by going to the archives of Meet The Press for September 7th Joe Biden was a guest that day and he never mentions the flag at all.

Read the transcript for yourself. In fact I did extensive research and I came up with absolutely NO evidence that Obama ever made any such comments. So where did this email originate? It turns out it was originally written by a conservative blogger named John Semmens of Arizona in Now I know this email was forwarded to me innocently and with good intent.

But one major problem among many with the Internet is many people take statements and read blogs and emails and in many cases take it as gospel truth. But my thirst for truth commands and demands me to research everything and I mean everything that comes my way even if it means coming to the aid of and defending the enemy. The Sword of Truth will topple Obama and the Democrats. Unfortunately propaganda like this only aids the enemy. Obama and his kind are fighting the army of The Lord God most High.

Truth will prevail and they will be defeated. The Holy Catholic Church. Many of these empires, movements and ideologies are long gone and have been destroyed and those that remain will meet the same fate.

But the Church is still standing and She will stand until the end of time. She is the light on the hill and she proclaims Truth which is unchanging and constant. I will save this topic for another time. Mr Obama, you may have the powers of hell on your side but they are no match for the Kingdom of Heaven.