Obama advisor calls for troops to stay in Iraq through 2010

These are the kinds of stories that make me skeptical of his words as opposed to his actions. When questioned as to whether he would have voted for the IWR if in the Senate at the time, he stated he didn't know. Not the answer of someone truly against this war in my view, and as his votes to fund it also intimate. Especially now in light of the fact that his main endorser John Kerry was the one Democrat who made the most profit out of defense company investments while stating he was against the war as well.

Now reading this and other stories it would appear his advisors are not on the same page as he is regarding this "war" in Iraq. He claims he will have the troops out by 2009 which I think it misleading under the circumstances.The situation in Iraq now will make it impossible to do that, and those who voted to continue to fund it rather then defund it and impeach these criminals have only helped to make that situation worse.

Therefore, I think it would be better if he came out and stated the truth rather than trying to straddle the line between appealing to the anti-war vote and Republicans for the war. That looks to me like what this is all about, with him denying he agrees with this assessment even though it too gets press. To me it is the same status quo politics regarding this 'war' and based on what I have read regarding the situation in Iraq I think I can safely assume that it matters not who is 'elected,' we will have troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

General Petraeus is already beating the war drums by stating that Iran is responsible for violence in Iraq, and Bush and company still have six months to move on to their next step. I really then have a very hard time trusting anything any of the candidates say about getting all of the troops out now.

Which is why it is a good thing that it is not Mr. Kahl who is running for president, but Mr. Obama.

Hmm, so you can then guarantee beyond a doubt that should he be elected CEO of America Inc. that he could not be persuaded to keep those troops there? You know for a fact that he isn't just like all the rest in saying what the anti-war voters want to hear just to get elected? And what about Afghanistan? Funny how none of these candidates ever talk about that, nor have I heard one of them speak out against Bush's plan to add more troops there.

I know this - Obama has proven his good judgement, he was against the war when it mattered, before Bush got us into this mess, and he understands we're spending way too much money on that country. He also knows we have to get off the oil, sooner rather than later. I also believe he does not take the soldiers' individual lives for granted, and I think he'll do everything in his power to bring them home as soon as possible. Given the circumstances, which are shitty to say the least, I think he'll make the best decisions that can be made -- or is that giving him too much credit?

The key phrase that absolves them all : as soon as ^possible.^ But again, he voted to fund it just like the rest of them, and has stated nothing about seeking accountability from Bush and his war criminals. That may not matter to you, but it does to me. And should these warmongers escalate this to Iran with the blessings of this Congress that both he and Clinton are members of, I will never forgive them.

I'm pretty sure if there's a move to invade Iran, Obama will vote against it.

Here is a link to a very comprehensive speech Obama made on this subject Jan. These are his words not those of somebody advising him. This could help you get your facts straight.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php

Here's an exerpt:

"When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I introduced a plan in January that would have already started bringing our troops out of Iraq, with a goal of removing all combat brigades by March 31, 2008. If the President continues to veto this plan, then ending this war will be my first priority when I take office."

Now will he take the situation on the ground in Iraq into account when (as many of us hope) he becomes president? God I hope so. He has said many times, "We need to be as careful getting out, as we were careless getting in". That's more than just a well written line (though even you would have to admit, it is well written). Are you suggesting that he should just recklessly withdraw the troops no matter what the situation is on January 20, 2009?

maltesetitan...rather than cutting and pasting the same old crap, why don't you try answering some of the many questions people have left for you on threads that YOU started. Your spam and run technique is getting old.

Yes, that 'excerpt" sure sounds like the Bush strategy alright. He is still giving credence to this bogus "war on terror" that has only been used as a fear tactic to pass The Patriot Act and other bills limiting our freedoms. The fact is that he has voted to fund this war (which I am sure John Kerry and Republicans in Congress invested in Defense companies were happy about as they made a profit off it) many times which has kept it going.

The substance of this then is that beyond his "words" and 'speeches' the situation as it is in realityland does not lend itself to all of the troops being withdrawn in 2009 as he is promising in his rallies to get votes, and that is what I have a problem with. He is also for keeping all options regarding Iran including military on the table and also voted I believe for the Syria Accountability Act. On the matter of war then I do not trust his words once again based on his actions, and those are the facts.

JanforGore...

There is nothing bogus about HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE all over the WORLD and there is nothing bogus about people seeking to harm innocents while cloaked in the illusionary blanket of some national or religious cause.

Without SECURITY there is nothing.

Just watched the Bill Moyers report on the Congo and how that region has been torn apart by war for so long the people are afraid to go back home. Now 3 years later AID is coming in and they are hoping to plant SEEDS again, build basic shelter again. EVERYTHING BURNT TO THE GROUND.

NO SECURITY. NO PEACE. NO HOME. NO FOOD.

HAS the WE THE CORP. CROWD LIED?

YES THEY HAVE.

Does this mean we don't need TRUTHFUL, WE THE PEOPLE, STRONG SECURITY?

I expect Obama to hold true to his word if humanly possible. He has advisors and they have opinions they share with him. Doesn't mean he will follow that advice. He is his own man. Got where he is all by HIMSELF.

I agree M_M. I expect him to hold true to his word as well. And if the situation has changed and it becomes necessary to keep some troop there longer than he wants or for the withdraw to go slower than he wants, I expect he'll come before the American people and honestly talk to us about the situation. Like adults.

He's proven that he's up to that task and what's more he's proven that he thinks we are up to being a part of that conversation if necessary. And that's what is setting him apart from the rest of the candidates.

That doesn't surprise me to the least. If Obama is elected President you'll all be sorry trust me. He's doing exactly what Bush did before he was elected..leading everyone into a false sense of security. Remember while deciding who to choose for president, not voting for any of the above is also a choice.

I didn't vote for Bush. I checked his record. He has bankrupted everything he ever touched. True to form he bankrupted America too. Anyone that had a sense of security about him was not paying attention. I have checked his record too. Obama is everything Bush is not. We will do well to have him for President. Not voting is an option for those that don't care what happens to the country, and a good idea for some.

Oh yes, I am sure you are looking forward to my response so you and your usual gang here can pounce on it. It looks very obvious you know. And again, what is it with calling me a "hater?" It is not hate to question policy and critique it, and since some here seem to have Clinton covered here so well with parsing her every word in their own litle world of "constructive criticism"... Now as far as "advisors" supposedly being against Obama's beliefs on ending this "war", which is what this artcile brings out, I again, do not trust he will remain so if true should he be crowned king of America and no amount of words he speaks now during a campaign will change that impression. That has more to do with knowing politics and how any human can be changed by it rather than "hating" anyone. And in his case as well as I pointed out already, the difference between his words and his actions. And so, if you continue to use the same you are a "hater" line as your basis to attack comments simply because you don't like them, it actually null and voids your own.

And basically, it sounds like the Bush strategy because it is. Getting the "evildoers" so to speak wherever they hide. I will also post the other link to the other article I posted here with his exact words regarding attacking Pakistan as well then for those who didn't get it the first time. No wonder Lee Hamilton of the 9.11 whitewash Commission who was also placed on Bush's Homeland Security Commission endorsed him as well as other military personnel. He will keep them in business as he also believes in enlarging the military. I am sure Brezinski who also advises him is part of that as well. Those CFR boys like war. So I would then say it doesn't sound like it to you because of your blind worship for him which is actually dangerous. And I do read his "words" but again, they are just "words" and I have no real foreign policy to go on. Is there any?

And yes, Eco Media, the term "war on terror' is bogus. Just like their "war on drugs", their "war on poverty" and any other damn war this government deems to use to make a profit from it. But then, I am sure now that under a President Obama if he keeps Directive 51 in his back pocket as well, the same people who cried about it here in relation to Bush would gladly fall under it with Obama. And in all honesty, I don't trust Clinton or McCain regarding this either, and certainly do not trust ANY of them regarding Iran. The first order of bsiness for any of them if they really want to stop terrorism would be to stop ours by calling for an end to the unitary executive Bush managed to get while they were in Congress to begin with. Let's just see if it is. Then maybe we'll talk about "trusting" words.

And Eco Media: Security is one thing and we would still have it without this pretense being put on us... Using it as a tactic of fear to make the people submit to your will is quite another, which is what we have now. That isn't freedom, that is fascism.

A mentor once gave me this analogy to ponder:

"If someone says you're a horse and you're pretty sure you're not a horse, ignore it and move on. But if many people are saying you're a horse . . . get a saddle."

tHERE İS A MORE SERİOUS PROBLEM THAT OVERİDES THE OTHERS...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECV52iiLbRM this is everyones battle lets hope we can find a cure for all of it....

Is that why he voted against interest rate ceilings? Was that not brought out in the debates? I think John Edwards did mention that and he admitted it. And again, if he is not tied to purse strings then he wouldn't have watered down a nuclear bill while in the state legislature to make it easy for his donor Exelon regarding reporting leaks. He wouldn't have voted to fund this war continually when it too is keeping people poor and keeping our troops in hell. He wouldn't have voted for the 2005 Energy bill that gave more Federal subsidies for nuclear energy and corn ethanol. He wouldn't have voted for the Bush Syria Accountability Act which calls for placing sanctions on Syria in lieu of his words about sitting with 'our enemies.' So you see, his words and actions do not mesh, so while it is fine to go on "perceptions" it is not always good for the country.

However, if as you say he is the best we have, well , I suspect it will then be more of the same because once in Washington DC at the pinnacle of power he will have no choice but to do what he is told. That is really the point of this. Words said in a campaign to get votes on the part of any candidate are in reality part of the smoke and mirrors of this system that takes someone who may have good intentions and molds them to the will of those who really run this government. So unless you are willing to stand up and fight that rather than just going on what your "perceptions" are thinking that will change anything, I don't think it will. The same corporations buying favors in Washington (including AIPAC which Obama also supports) will continue to do so, and if that is not true then I believe we would be seeing another candidate still in this race that is no longer there, or perhaps one who swore politics off because of it.

A little off topic mcwally, but is there any documentation out there to support your link?

I don't believe Obama has taken a dime from Rupert Murdoch. I firmly believe that he will do everything he can to get our troops out of Iraq. He knows that Al Queda is the real problem and always was. We have to go after them and we can't afford to be sidetracked with nation building. Until Al Queda is taken care of there is no chance for peace anywhere. Afghanistan is the heart of Al Queda, and bin Laudin. Remember him?

Don't buy the Obama hype, because that's all he is until he proofs himself. The problem is everyone is falling for the guy just because he gives good speeches without ever really proofing his true character out of the political curtain. Wake up everyone, or don't and have Obama hugely disappoint you. Either way don't say I didn't tell you.

Thanks again for responding Jan.

First, I was careful not to call you a “hater”. You have been hyper sensitive about “name calling” in the past, so I resolved to comment on your actions and not to label you. So the appropriate question would be “Why do I think you hate Obama?” And I’d think the answer is pretty obvious. Your irrational attacks speak for themselves. But since you went to the trouble to ask, here’s an example.

You still haven’t read the speech I posted. I know because if you had you wouldn’t have said “I will also post the other link to the other article I posted here with his exact words regarding attacking Pakistan” (which incidentally you failed to do). Had you bothered to read the speech, to research the subject of YOUR post, you would have known that the comment you are referencing came from the very speech I posted. No need to post it Jan…I already did. Of course it’s in the context of his comprehensive foreign policy discussion. But you would have known that if you bothered to read it.

You opine “It is not hate to question policy and critique it”. Critique is fine, but not if you haven’t bothered to know the facts. Clearly you haven’t. Just like after Obama’s speech on unity, you jumped on the boards and excoriated him and the speech for all it’s many shortcomings. BUT…after a little back and forth you were forced to admit you hadn’t listened to the whole speech.

This is why I think you have and agenda, and you why I’m convinced that you are driven by an irrational hatred of Obama. Well…one of the reasons. And it’s also why you are losing your credibility on this site. Which is sad, because you were once one of the best posters.

I’ve got a long day and won’t be able to get back on today. I’m sure the debate will rage on without me. But Jan if you ever do get around to reading that speech and you want to discuss then whether or not Obama and Bush have the same foreign policy…I will be happy to join in that debate. Until then, I’ll take your opinion on that for what it is…a baseless rant.

But yet again you deem to classify this entry as "irrational" and a "baseless rant" and say my credibility is going down on this site (?) simply because a few people disagree with my views on this for what reason? Because my postings threaten you and you can't refute what I posted about his record so you attack me? Are you then saying that those here who greenlighted this thread are irrational as well? Could it be that people are simply looking for a political thread not full of BS and cliquish one upping which seems to be prevalent in many places on the Internet?

And I did have that foreign policy discussion in the thread that I will post here. However, again, in that one as well assorted names were called by the same people who frequent Obama threads to pounce on those who dare challenge his lack of experience in foreign policy. So if you wanted to have that "discussion" you wouldn't need to find an excuse not to. But have a nice day.