Obama advisor calls for troops to stay in Iraq through 2010

wow, quite a heated deabte going on here. I d like to throw my hat in the ring and say that I am totally against the war in Iraq as it was not just. However, I do believe that if Obama is elected and withdraws troops to satisfy his electorate, he will leave a legacy of disorder and violence in Iraq - secuirty is the only answer to the complex problems that exist in Iraq today. Without secuirty the state cannot continue. I do like Obama's style and speeches, but I think his attitude towards Iraq is quite niave and simplistic.

Yes. Candidates websites will present the candidate in the best possible light. And often the policy section of the website just contains a sort of "best of" list. All three candidates sites have these sound bites and I agree those sections don't refute TouchArt's comment about Obamas "lack of substance". But...you know this Jan because you read the link, others might not know that the link provided was NOT to one of these policy sections. It is the unedited transcript of a speech he gave in August 2007. Yes it is found on his website...and many other sites as well. Here it is again anyone who doesn't want to pick back through posts.

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

And yes, it is just words. Being a speech it's hard to get around that. But I don't think anyone could read it and claim that it lacks substance. There are many clear policy initiatives. He even allocates budget proposals. There is direct contrast drawn between his policy and the policy of the current administration. Refuting the suggestion that he shares the same failed policy as Bush/Cheney. Jan I'll take your silence on that point as a concession. As I've said before, feel free to dispute the wisdom of the policies he outlines here. I think they are sound...others might not. But to say it's not a comprehensive and thoughtful discussion on foreign policy as it relates to the middle east, terrorism and the greater Muslim world does not stand up to scrutiny.

Some people want to dismiss these words. I say judge for yourself.

Wonderful. Then we can expect that those who wish to express whatever opinion they choose on the topic will be allowed to do so. I sure hope so, because as a mother my feelings on this are yes, strong regarding this war and in not trusting the words of ^any^ of these candidates about it.

And as Touch Art stated, websites of candidates will wish to present the candidate as they choose to be seen in order to campaign effectively enough to get 'elected.' I stated I read the speech you posted previously and that it was just words to me. I still believe that as well as about Clinton. That opinion is not changing and I appreciate your response.

You are of course free to support whomever you wish and I don't believe I or anyone else has stated anything to the contrary to anyone. So, in ending this I would not only ask ALL those who voted for this to admit their mistake, I would ask Obama and Clinton why they have not called for Bush's impeachment and are still funding this war. But I am sure they will get a pass on that as well.

Not self edited, but edited.

Jan, I share your concern about war and while I don't have a teenage child and can't know that specific fear, I do have friends in the military and I share your outrage about this needless war in Iraq. I'm also very conflicted about Afghanistan. Clearly we haven't yet apprehended (or killed) all of those responsible for 9.11 and I do think that there are times when a country does need to go to war. But I'm worried about that conflict dragging on for decades as well.

I know you dismiss his "words", that's your right. But I don't. I think his approach is the right one because it balances strength with reason. Force with diplomacy. And war (if necessary) with education. You are right, they are just words at this point. Your distrust is your right and nobody is asking you to apologize for it. But you are wrong when you characterize his policy as being the same as Bush. That is just not supported by the facts.

And TouchArt, I understand why you might think that Obama's speeches lack substance. It has been a constant line of attack and the media has parroted it into general acceptance. I can even agree that some of his (and every candidate's) stump speeches are light on the specifics. I chalk that up to the unfortunate necessity of running for president in this media environment and I'm willing to cut him some slack. If you and Jan choose not to, that's up to you. But...there are several very comprehensive speeches on his web site. You might not agree with his point of view, but I don't think it's fair to say he's always vague and non specific. The speech I mentioned above is hardly lacking in specifics, regardless of how much you might disagree with what he is saying.

Of course you are right about being vigilant and continuing to question. Skepticism his healthy (irrational hatred isn't). Though I'd say that on the subject of trustworthiness, Senator Clinton has given us more than enough reason to remain skeptical for a very long time.

And lastly, when it comes to the war itself, the lingering question remains. When will Senator Clinton take responsibility for her part in this war? It’s difficult to take any withdraw policy seriously when she still refuses to admit to her mistake and apologize for her vote to authorize this terrible war. Where will her political expediency lead us next?

I'm going to put back a comment that the current editors rudely erased from this discussion:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3639881&page=1

Clinton's policy on troop withdrawal is the same as Obama's, and both candidates have it right.

Immediate wholesale withdrawal would be catastrophic.

Hey guys,

This conversation has taken a turn for the personal and, once again, please remember that Current is not the place for personal attacks. It's one thing to debate an issue, but there's no need to make it personal.

With an issue as controversial as politics, there will always be people with differences of opinion. That's fine, and one of the reasons that debate is so important. However, it's not necessary to feel threatened by those who disagree and allow that to lead to personal disputes.

Comments related to personal disputes have been removed from this thread, and we will continue to do so if this continues.

Everyone here is clearly very passionate and involved in the upcoming election, and we just want to make sure that this discussion stays civil.

Steph

Of course I read the entire post.
I don't think personal attacks further intelligent discussion about important life and death issues. Whenever anyone is calling anyone "childish", whether JanforGore, or Jade_Azul16 who called JanforGore "childish" by implication, it detracts from the seriousness of this choice for who to lead our country out of this war.
However, JanforGore's point about being badgered is well taken. Many of the responses to JanforGore's informative posts were name-calling and repeated demands that had a bullying tone to them. There are doubtless other people who have also felt badgered, and others who refrain from posting out of fear of being attacked if they disagree. A more respectful tone would benefit everyone.

TouchArt: With all due respect (and thank you for your posts) . . . your comment to Jade was:

"Sounds foolish"?? Jade_Azul16, why is it necessary to call anyone names or characterize their tone with negative judgment?

By not reading the whole post you didn't realize she was responding to Jan (and defending Krag) who said:

"You sound very childish now with your badgering." to Krag. Which would be a more appropriate application of your question.

Why would you keep private security contractors there if not to patrol the oil wells? The embassy there is the size of a large U.S. city. I am sure that investment will not be abandoned either. Very telling.

Like JanforGore, I have children who are old enough to serve in the armed forces, but thankfully, my three grown sons and almost 18 year old daughter are aware enough to be against war and for peace with justice. I think most of the young Obama supporters only hear Obama say he'll end the war in Iraq. They don't seem to want to listen to the other things Obama says that point not to peace, but to more war and more militarization. Increasing the troop level by 100,000 and keeping private security contractors in Iraq is not the direction of a candidate committed to peace. Wonder what Dr. King would say to that?

We must be careful and well aware that these two democratic candidates are way less liberal than they seem. I wish there was a real progressive party, like those in Europe.

the movement of 150000 troops, their armor, their weapons and their ammo will certainly take at least two years. i was logistics (92A) in the (regular) Army, and I have an idea of what this grand scale de-invasion/unoccupation will take, and it is at least two years. Army is slow and it is meant to be slow, so please don't prematurely blame this memo on an Obama foreign policy flaw. At least he (unlike Bush) has a foreign policy.

change will not come overnight, nor in just 16 months. Sorry, i want my friends and family home too.

Hillary would be there 'till the end of her presidency (if big money told her to be).

Yes, the word "draft" had not been mentioned yet, but I am sure it is thought about as an option. Why do you think Obama is appealing to the youth vote? I am afraid that there would be many young people so drawn in by him, that even should he say a draft would be the best way to deal with this they would agree. Of course, I think these candidates (even McCain who mentioned increasing military strength without a draft) know that saying that word would be political suicide, so they will now find a way to actually do it without saying the word. All I know is, they are NOT getting my son.

"sounds foolish"?? Jade_Azul16, why is it necessary to call anyone names or characterize their tone with negative judgment?

You wrote: TouchArt, want to know Obama's policies in detail?
They are perfectly available for everyone to read on his website.

Clearly, I've visited Mr. Obama's website, Hillary Clinton's too. But I don't take what is said on either site as true without fact-checking through other sources.
It is always good to research multiple sources to find out what a candidate's policies are and to investigate the facts through the public record to see if their words have matched their actions. Any candidate's website is designed to project only the most positive side of the candidate. Campaign websites are not the most objective source of facts and should always be questioned and fact-checked to get an objective view.

It's nice to read such strong opinions from all sides.

Obama says he'll get all the troops out of Iraq in 16 months.
Two of his top advisors have said that's not necessarily true.
Obama has said he'll increase troops by 100,000, build up the military and will keep private security contractors in Iraq.
Where's did the "Peace" candidate go?

Where does Obama think he's going to get 100,000 more troops? The Bush administration has already had to lower mental and criminal standards to get new recruits and offer huge signing bonuses. Where will Obama find 100,000 new troops? Re-enlist some of our brave soldiers who've lost limbs and are now in army hospitals? Keep lying to the youth in our poorest communities and get them signed up? Recruit in mental hospitals and prisons?

100,000 more troops? Sounds like a great plan for peace.

Touch Art:

Thanks. You have written many responses and entries here in support of Hillary Clinton, and even though you know I do not support her you have not deemed it necessary to attack me personally when I posted here why I was not pleased with her as well. That is the difference between some and the Obama gangs on the Internet that cannot seem to allow someone to have an opinion. However, it is the same on Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, and other sites.They have lost many posters because a contingent of the Obama supporters have been dowright nasty, vulgar, and intimidating. It isn't all as I have actually spoken to some who can at least conduct a civil conversation without getting personal, but it is rare. I am beginning to believe some of them are either Republicans looking to push the Democratic Party apart, or paid operatives. It is amazing how it is always the same people doing it on these sites. And yes, to make it personal actually shows a lack of maturity in my view. I am old enough to have been through many a campaign and the contentiousness is on a political level that does pass over time. And I always thought that to stand up honestly for what you think and believe is the best way. I have never followed the crowd just because it was popular to do so, and I don't intend to start now.

The bottomline is that I am skeptical of his words regarding troop levels now based on his advisor's words and again, his own actions and votes and frankly I don't trust any of them regarding this matter. I think it may have gone too far now. I suppose we will just have to wait and see what happens. However, again, eight months is still a long time for Bush and Cheney to institute their attack of Iran if indeed the indicators are accurate, and that is not making me feel any more secure regarding all of this.

Perhaps those of us with teenage children tend to worry more about war. I grew up during Vietnam and saw what it did to my own cousin, and I am not about to see my own son have to go fight in someone's "offensive" illegal unconstitutional war regardless of who it is or what "party" they represent and I have no intention of apologizing for that opinion. My greatest fear is to see my son go off to a foreign hell and never come back. I truly think I would lose my mind if that ever happened. And that is why I think *all* of this damned war talk needs to be stopped. Afghanistan should not BE a war now. We supposedly went there to apprehend those we were told were responsible for 9.11. It should not BE a WAR now. We should not still be doing this to our children. And NONE of these candidates should be using this damned invasion as a political campaign platform to get votes. Too many real lives have been ended and changed forever because of them being a part of it and not putting a stop to it by calling for Bush's and Cheney's impeachment.

I do not think Krag is the one that sounds childish here.

It is sad how someone, little by little, has been loosing credibility, our respect and admiration.

TouchArt, want to know Obama's policies in detail?
They are perfectly available for everyone to read on his website.

have fun,

cheers. :)

JanforGore, thanks for your facts and the links. Don't worry about the personal attacks by people who don't understand this isn't personal. This is not about hating or loving either candidate. Frankly, it's chilling when people write how they "believe" Obama thinks this or that. Mostly, they believe Obama is going to do whatever they personally think is the ultimate good. That's no accident. Notice how in his speeches, Obama is most always vague and non-specific, so each person can fill in their own most dearly held opinion and be convinced that Barack Obama shares their goals and will make it happen. In his speech on race, Obama said he disavowed some of the Reverend Wright's statements, but he wasn't specific about which ones he was rejecting, so everyone listening could think he rejects the ones they find offensive. In fact, no where in his speech did Obama actually tell us which statements he finds offensive.
This election is important. People's lives depend upon who we choose. It's not about who you love or who is most presidential looking, or who gives the best speeches. It is important to look at the words and actions of all three candidates. Obama said he wants to increase U.S. armed forces by 100,000. He also said he'll keep private security contractors in Iraq. He doesn't sound like much of a peace candidate.
If Obama thinks it's 21st century thinking to build up the military and partnerships "as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War", he's too close to GW Bush's idea of the 21st century. He's 46, old enough to remember that the Cold War ended because the people said they had enough of the war mongers making money off of destruction and pushed for the anti-ballistic treaties that Bush and Cheney are trying to reneg on now. Go back to Cold War attitudes? Isn't it time to turn to peace and resolving conflict through diplomacy and negotiation, in this, the 21st century? If two of Obama's advisors contradict what he says in his speeches, shouldn't voters pay attention? And since Obama has already lied about passing his senate bill to protect the public from the nuclear industry, we should be extra vigilant about questioning his promises about getting the troops out of the war in Iraq, especially since this promise is why many voted for him.

self edited.

Did you post all of his foreign policy experience? I read it and commented on it... Just words. What more can be said of a campaign speech? If you are looking for some sort of kudos for his words on this from me based on no foreign policy experience or record to speak of I am afraid you will be disappointed. In my view it is just a speech given by a candidate who knows what he must say to get people to vote for him. But don't fret, I don't have kudos on this matter for Clinton, McCain, or for anyone in this Congress who supports the same offensive strategy of the current regime in any way shape or form. And they all do.

I then think I will reserve judgement on his "words" until see action. There are those who do not agree with his policy on war/terrorism. I am one of them. It is born not of personal hatred which you seem to always throw out because you are bitter in the knowledge that not everyone thinks him perfect, but of reason. I see no end to this war in Iraq or Afghanistan (which we should have left already by now) in 2009, or even 2010 as it will be allowed to continue for the next eight months and beyond, and I see an escalation on the horizon... and based on the track record of this Congress for the last eight years which includes him and his funding votes, I don't have to trust any of his "words."

So again, and actually for the last time in response to you on this, save yourself the further trouble of badgering me. It isn't going to change anything.

Thanks for responding Jan - I was right there with you right up to your comma.

He had a proven record from at least spending some time in Congress beforehand and I knew his *actions* in regards to the environment. His words on that actually meshed with his actions. I have been supporting Al Gore since1988, not just in 2000. He actually served the people of his state for some time before running for VP and then president, unlike those whose egos won't allow it.

Personally, unsubstantiated suspicions and assumptions about Obama don't warrant outrage. It would be a just a little premature to express outrage about attacking Iran since at this point it hasn't been proven without a doubt that they will. If it were a definite, provable plan I'm sure both candidates would speak out in outrage.

I think the "they all" you refer to doesn't really encompass everyone, just our current administration which will, in fact, bring outrage if we do in fact attack Iran; although not a yardstick by which everyone should be judged since their actions are beyond comparison to any administration in history.

Since words spoken during a campaign mean nothing to you, how did you come to support Al Gore in 2000? I assume you trusted his words. I definitely voted for him based on his words, but then again I didn't assume it was all bs because he was a politician.

Yes, the signs on Iran are there and its pretty scary. I hope Bush's exit will be as peaceful as his presidency has been war-ful but I doubt it.

As far as Iraq and Afghanistan--

I side with both Hillary and Obama in that an immediate wholesale withdrawal from Iraq would be catastrophic. We created the mess, we've killed over 100,000 innocent Iraqis, we do have some responsibility to stop the bleeding.

In Afghanistan, I side with Obama. Afghanistan is the fight we should have been engaged in all along; we need to have strategic deployments of troops (not all out war) there and in Pakistan to target Al Qaeda leadership.

More words. They all have words invoking JFK when it suits them as if that makes them like him when there is no evidence to even suggest that. What will their words be should these maniacs attack Iran before November? The signs are all there. Are they noticing them? If they are why aren't they speaking out about it to avoid it? Where is their OUTRAGE besides their feel good campaign speeches? Will they say it was justified based on their own policies should it happen?
And Burning Bush: I do not "love" Hillary Clinton. To think I do just because I question Obama's foreign policy is kind of myopic. As I stated here already, I do not trust ANY of them in regards to Iran or the Middle East, and words spoken during a campaign mean nothing to me. In the end we will only get a continuation of this war with hopefully no escalation of it before then. Bush has already stated however that he will be sending a "significant" number of troops to Afghanistan in 2009 ... Which means if he really intends to leave that gives him 19 days in January to do it or he will get agreement from the next "president" to do it. It will be very telling to see just what he gets away with in the time he has left.

Ocanda - When Obama used the example of the 'alliance that won the cold war', it was clear what he meant, so no need to put words in his mouth.

The Cold War was the period of conflict, tension and competition between the United States and the Soviet Union and their respective allies from the mid-1940s until the early 1990s. There was never a direct military engagement between the US and the Soviet Union.

The difference is that the philosophy then was that wars were only waged as a last resort, something that wasn't even half-heartedly attempted when we attacked Iraq, so not part of our current policy.

And we're all with you on that hope.

Those are certainly heartening words.

"This cannot just be an American mission. Al Qaeda and its allies operate in nearly 100 countries. The United States cannot steal every secret, penetrate every cell, act on every tip, or track down every terrorist -- nor should we have to do this alone. This is not just about our security. It is about the common security of all the world.

As President, I will create a Shared Security Partnership Program to forge an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure to take down terrorist networks from the remote islands of Indonesia, to the sprawling cities of Africa. This program will provide $5 billion over three years for counter-terrorism cooperation with countries around the world, including information sharing, funding for training, operations, border security, anti-corruption programs, technology, and targeting terrorist financing. And this effort will focus on helping our partners succeed without repressive tactics, because brutality breeds terror, it does not defeat it."

and then there's

"It's time to turn the page on the diplomacy of tough talk and no action. It's time to turn the page on Washington's conventional wisdom that agreement must be reached before you meet, that talking to other countries is some kind of reward, and that Presidents can only meet with people who will tell them what they want to hear.

President Kennedy said it best: "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate." Only by knowing your adversary can you defeat them or drive wedges between them. As President, I will work with our friend and allies, but I won't outsource our diplomacy in Tehran to the Europeans, or our diplomacy in Pyongyang to the Chinese. I will do the careful preparation needed, and let these countries know where America stands. They will no longer have the excuse of American intransigence. They will have our terms: no support for terror and no nuclear weapons."

Here's the whole speech again:

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

“To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnerships as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar.”

How is this different from the current policy?

I understand your concern over such a comment and my only response would be that the diference would be that we would no longer use unilateral force and that we wouldn't go to war without the weight of international oppinion resting with us, and even then as a last resort. He didn't say that explicitly in that statement so it might be a case of me putting words in his mouth. in this instance. I should hope however any candidate will have learned the lessons of the costs of unilateral action.

This arbitrary date of "late 2010" seems to perfectly jive with the Obama promise of troop withdrawal within 16 months of his being sworn in. Do the math people.

Did you read the speech yet Jan?

If you had you know there is a little more to his policy than the one quote you cherry picked from some other thread. And one that Chique has dissected nicely.

I'll check back in later to see what kind of progress you're making. I know it's a long speech...being so comprehensive and all.

ANY candidate that has made it this far through our media is bought by the corporations. This does not surprise me.

You're probably right as usual Jan. There really isn't a bit of difference between starting a war and using diplomacy to avoid one. What was I thinking.

Just a question, but isn't his whole thing that he never wanted or voted for the war in the first place and that if he won the presidency that he would pull troops out right away? Why is someone in his camp saying something very different!?

i am so shocked by these revelations that i'm gonna start sniffin' glue again .

Then by all means stay out if you can help yourself. I know how hard Democracy really is for some people here, and that makes me sad.

"The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted."
James Madison .

Even our Founding Fathers flawed as they were knew better than to be blinded by allegiance to any one person with it.

Chique: sorry, no sale.

A 21st century military would be Blackwater, unlike the current military we have and unfortunately need.

21st century partnerships as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War would be without anyone dying.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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....

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."

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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 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?

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.

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

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.