Obama says he will back Petraeus as leader of Central Command

gool...Jan has a point. Obama didn't vote against the war, he was not in the Senate at that point. At that time though, he did speak out in a famous speech in opposition of the war. Here's a link.

http://www.lessig.org/blog/2008/01/barack_obamas_2002_speech.html

Now the Obama bashers are going to say it was just words. Or they are going to tell you that he didn't mean it and as proof they are going to talk about how there was a period of time when he didn't have the speech up on his website or they will point to some out of context quote where he said he wasn't sure exactly how he would have voted. None of that changes the facts. He spoke out in opposition, the other two candidates un-apologetically voted for the war.

Read the speech. Research the facts. Judge for yourself.

And thanks for your posts.

As I've said before, "everybody sucks" is a very easy position to take. As easy as it is to say voting to approve a war is the same as not de-funding the troops on the ground. As easy as it is to imply that threatening to nuke a country is the same as saying all options are on the table. As easy as is to say that simply agreeing to be interviewed is the same as endorsing the views of the person or company doing the interview.

All these things are easy to do when you are posting on some board. The world is so black and white when you are clacking away on your keyboard. But some people have to be the adults and deal with the world as it really is. Not everybody has the luxury of sitting up on their high horse, looking down their noses at all the morons who just don't have the good sense to see the world exactly the same way they do.

But has a person who views the world this way ever done anything more that simply complain about it?

I'm not a HIllary follower. You would know that if you were actually reading the entries here.

Check your facts.

You sit at the table with them every day you are a member of Congress and do not call for the impeachment of those who brought us into this nightmare called Iraq. There is no excusing that and no defending it. There is no defending someone who is hypocritical about it either, and I am tired of the excuses.

He votes to confirm Chertoff, Rice, and others involved in this war, votes to extend the Patriot Act, and has voted to fund this war EVERY single time it has come up just like others. He will now vote for Petraeus to be promoted after being involved in this illegal folly that has taken hundreds of thousands of lives and destroyed two countries in the process and then think to tell people he is against this war as he continues to state all options are on the table with Iran as Clinton has done. Sorry, I am not that naive as some who have not seen enough to understand the game he is playing. Remember, he is also AIPAC approved just like Clinton is. He is no different than Hillary Clinton or John McCain when it comes to having blood on his hands. Funding this war is only prolonging the death and destruction we have brought to Iraq and Afghanistan. Abandoning your principles by continuing to vote to fund it just to get votes is not change.

And sitting on FOX NEWS which is the Propaganda channel of the Bush regime to woo his followers is disgusting to me. So if you find it OK then I suppose Clinton going on there or having associations with them is OK too. Oh wait, that's different, right? That makes her a Republican, but he is reaching out to them. Hypocrisy to the extreme. To me it is pandering regardless of who it is.

There is no excusing aiding those who have brought us to this place. If I recall, a story made it to the frontpage of Current over the weekend about one of his 'adivsors' supposedly saying he was going to take it to Fox News. Again, was that all a ploy for ratings? I didn't see that. Rupert Murdoch's daughter's fundraiser for him was last night too... I bet she raised a lot for him after that appearance.

Again, I will wait to see the vote and how others vote. If Clinton votes to confirm him as well, I will let my voice be heard about it. I doubt many who support him would put that above their idolization of him, and that does not bode well for this country.

I personally think we need another debate so he can clairfy what he meant by "strategic interests" and all can lay their cards on the table about just what they intend to do about this 'war' . To say it will depend on the ground situation when they/if they get inand leave it at that is simply not good enough anymore.

i "hope" Obama's "hope" doesn't bite him in the ass .

No condescension intended, subtle or otherwise. And you’re right, I have no idea how you’ve changed, but I wasn’t referring to your personal change. I don’t know you and even if I did, that wouldn’t be relevant. I think maybe you’re taking these posts too personally.

There is huge difference between reaching out to the voters who watch a specific channel (even one I personally dislike) and sitting at the table with neocons as you put it. Just as there is a huge difference between a presidential candidate saying that they would obliterate an entire nation and one saying that all options are on the table. It’s the difference between defining a policy and making a rash threat (one designed to get headlines by the way). With all your vitriol for Bush and his lot one would think you’d be a little less accepting of the kind of saber rattling that he has relied on for 7 and half years.

But po-tay-to, pa-tah-to right? Well…maybe not to the Iranians.

And what is the difference essentially with Clinton saying she will "eradicate" Iran and Obama saying "all options regarding Iran are still on the table" besides semantics? Because he makes it sounds "nicer" the connotation is changed? I think not.

Krag: Your subtle condescension towards me is very telling. You have absolutely no idea about how I have changed. "Change" is one thing... Sleeping with the enemy is another. And if you (in general) don't see Bush and his lot as enemies, then you are an enabler. I will not sit at any table with Neocons who destroyed this country. Period.

That is exactly what got us in this mess because Democrats have been too gutless to stand up to them when they had to. And they still do it as Obama is showing clearly again with this vote for a man who has carried out the orders of those who have done nothing but tear our Constitution to shreds and lie, steal, cheat, kill, wiretap, and torture their way through the last eight years. So what you consider "change" in cozying up to them and those who support them is nothing but more of the same in asking us all to be accomplices to the greatest crime perpetrated upon the American people. I will have no part of it. I will fight it.

So again, what does Obama mean by "strategic interests? " Iran? Pakistan? Syria? Why has there been no discussion of that? Is it because the answer really will hit too close to what we have now?

Mean Stream Media SOLD THE LIES. YES

However some are starting to see the ERROR of their WAYS.

THIS IS NOT EASY FOR THOSE IN THE MEDIA TO ADMIT,

NO MORE THAN IT IS EASY FOR 62 MILLION AMERICANS TO BELIEVE THEY HAVE BEEN DECEIVED.

ANY YET SLOWLY, LITTLE BY LITTLE, WE ALL FIND THE TRUTH IN TIME. THERE ARE STILL MANY WHO REFUSE TO SEE.

THIS IS CALLED BLIND FAITH.

HARD TO SEE THE TRUTH WHEN YOUR JOB IS DIRECTLY RELATED. HERE ALMOST EVERY GOOD PAYING JOB IS CONNECTED TO DEFENSE, CONSTRUCTION, ENERGY, OR SOME MAJOR COMPANY.

JOBS MATTER. JOBS MATTTER. JOBS MATTER.

BECAUSE ECONOMICS MATTER. IT IS LEADERSHIP THAT HAS LIED. NOT JUST THE PUPPET LEADERS, BUT THE MASTER PUPPET LEADERS BEHIND THE PUPPETS.

UNLESS YOU LOOK DEEP, YOU WILL NEVER SEE IT. IT'S COVERED UP BY THOSE PAID TO HIDE THEM.

and also:
how can anyone bitch about politics and say they wont vote? if you are gonna bitch, should probably exercise your basic right...
if no candidates strike your fancy, vote third party, we need to abolish this unjust two party system anyway.

this is a great discussion. thanks.

just wanted to remind us all that every major news outlet from Fox News to CNN to NBC have been "propagating propaganda" for years now. thanks to rummy and his planting of generals in the media.

http://current.com/items/88920509_pbs_breaks_media_blackout_of_nyt_story_on_pent...

if we keep being fooled by the politics of division and squabbling over devices planted not to further discussion but rather to split people in two "herdalbe" opinions (or parties if you will) we are stuck in ruts forever.

obama seems to be doing something that a lot of us struggle with, considering different opinions and talking to lots of different people. if we all can find a way to meet in the middle, then most interests will be accounted for and the happier we can be collectively.

Being bitter is understandable, staying that way is a choice. Seems like you've made yours.

Cynicism is easy...change isn't. It doesn't take unity tickets or kumbaya. And it doesn't take voting for Obama or anyone for that matter. But what it might take is considering the possibility that you are not right about everything and that the people who don't think exactly like you do deserve at least a little respect.

But hey...change is hard. So why try, right?

Thanks again...as always I enjoy you posts.

FOX News has propagated propaganda that has aided in the deaths of American citizens and the thwarting of Democracy. The damage done to this country by them and those who voted and enabled these traitors to our Constitution clearly out of their own hatred for other Americans is something I am not going to forgive. And believe me, I am not alone.

But gee, maybe Obama and McCain can run on a unity ticket since we are to just forget the last eight years. Or did you forget that we are "bitter?" Did you not agree with that premise when Obama claimed it? Now all of a sudden we are happy and forgiving and singing Kumbaya? Which is it this week?

Someone actually added the topic tags of "political pandering" and "status quo politicans"?

I guess that's a subtle que to the readers about how their supposed to view Obama's position on this!

Where have I seen that before?

I can't recall exactly. Something to do with...Fox News...and....John Kerry?

;-)

Well said krag2112.

Reminds me of the old joke"

Pres. Bush only speaks to highly intelligent people. How does he know someone is high intelligent? They agree with everything he says!

Obama doesn't (I don't think) falls into that trap. He recognizes that a difference of opinion isn't treason.

Does Obama agree with the views of Fox News? No, but he can engage them and maybe even change a few minds.

That strategy seems reasonable as does his reasoning for supporting Petraeus at this time.

Nobody is asking you to change your opinion Jan, I was just asking for clarification. Let me see if I got it right. People who voted for Bush should be considered beneath our contempt. Any candidate who attempts to speak to them is pandering. Some people's concerns are more important than other people because of where they choose to get their news. Okay...got it. Thanks for clearing it up.

I'm looking for a president who is interested in talking to all Americans. Not just the ones who think exactly like I do. This is one of the reasons I find Senator Obama to be such a good candidate. Is he perfect? No...far from it. But we have tried the politics of division for a long, long time. Look where it has led us. I'm ready for something new.

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

It seems as though Obama did not appear on Fox without certain pre-conditions. It was a closed set and I'm sure he got to pick the interviewer. He couldn't control the questions, but he could control his answers and his own conduct.

I think it showed a lot of class that he wasn't afraid to be asked bad questions. Fox does bad journalism, but it's not as low as the Jerry Springer show.

And considering the quality of question he was asked during a supposedly "serious" PA debates -- why not go on Fox?

Obama can't win. If he refuses to have a 279th debate with Hillary -- he's a coward. If he actually agress to gon on Fox News and be grilled by Republican hacks -- he's pandering!

Does there exsist an ideal scenario wherein the Obama skeptics will ever be convinced?

What would you like Obama to do?

Is there anything he could ever say (or do) that would ever change your mind about him?

Yes, it is as far as my motivation for comparing them based on who I was responding to and what I was responding about.

Sure, give excuses for him going on Fox now after agreeing about this MSM. There is no excuse for pandering to people who voted for Bush, some of them twice.They are the reason we are where we are now. And I'm not trying to make you believe anything as I am not in the employ of any campaign. I'm just expresssing my opinion and it isn't changing regarding this.

No..it's not. All wars are not created equal. WWII was entirely different than this war, therefore it's quite obvious the length of that war would be different. This is certainly not the longest war in history, and it probably won't be. I find it hard to even use the standard definition of war with this mess. If you do wish to compare this war with WWII, then it technically isn't longer than it so far anyway. We went to war with Japan in 1941 and signed the declaration of peace in 1951, making that ten years. So far this war has only gone on for six.

It is about "Principle", a foreign notion to politicians I know. I'm tired of the excuses.The Democrats are losing me with this.

Okay Jan. Thanks for the response. You aren't the only one posting here though. Yes, you have stated your opinion before, but the question was for everybody. But since you brought it up, was it just going on Fox News that you define as "pandering"? Was it that Obama thinks that it was the general's mission that is flawed and not the performance of the troops? Is that pandering in your opinion?

As I'VE stated before on other threads. I can't imagine what it must be like to have a child who could possibly end up fighting in this ill-conceived war. But, there are many parents who aren't simply contemplating that reality, they are living it. Many of those people watch Fox News regularly. You are going to have to go a long way to make me believe that attempting to talk to these people should be automatically defined as pandering. I'm pretty sure they don't deserved that.

But as always, I look forward to your response.

Bush is STILL in charge and pulling Petraeus out now (only to be replaced by someone else by Bush) won't bring the troops home any faster.

I think we're confusing symbolic genstures (such as NOT backing Petraeus) with actual results. Had Obama thrown a bannana cream pie in Gen. Petraeus face that would also be a symbolic gesture of disapproval for the ongoing Bush strategy -- but it wouldn't amount to much, would it?

So long as Bush is still Commander-in-Chief there isn't much Obama alone can do.

I think Obama clearly articulated his position on Fox Sunday when he said that all Petraeus is doing is what he is ordered to do by the President.

Nothing can really change in regards to the Iraq Occupation until we can replace the Commander-in-Chief.

Comparing this to WW2 in regards to its LENGTH is absolutely valid.

'As for your son, his choice to join the military and your protectiveness is irrelevant to the point of this thread (that YOU started). Also, I think I get pretty close to addressing what our "strategic interests" are in my original post.'

Really? Who are you to tell anyone what is relevant or irrelevant about their opinons? It is very relevant TO ME in regards to this war continuing and us continuing to hear BS from candidates who say one thing and then do another. And as to addressing what 'strategic interests' are, when you get an official position in the Obama campaign to relay what he meant or I hear it from him, then I will consider it.

I criticize ALL of those running when it comes to this unconstitutional illegal war. I think they ALL pander to groups to get votes, and in the case of any Democrat who goes on FOX to do it I find it disgusting. I am tired of Democrats playing more to Republicans than their own base. For me, VOTING for this war, FUNDING this war, and CONFIRMING those involved in it are all actions I am against regardless of whether it is Obama, Clinton, McCain or anyone else. So one more time: in the case of him voting to confirm Petraeus I find it to be hypocritical and pandering to warmongers. I also stated I would wait to see how Clinton votes. If she votes the same, she too is in the same category.

Oh...okay. Sorry for my confusion.

You won't mind me asking a question about the one of the candidates then. If the idea of confirming General Petraeus is a tacit sign of support for the war itself, what is supporting a candidate who un-apologetically voted for the war in the first place a sign of?

No Obama haters here.

Just seasoned activists researching and questioning all the candidates who want to be the democratic nominee and US president.

Right on mako2424.

It's interesting that all this talk from the Obama Haters about how Obama's openness to confirming Petraeus is some sort of confirmation of his lack of judgment or his war-like tendencies. He clearly sated in the interview that the general had been given a bad mission. A mission that he, as president would immediately change. Where is the lack of judgment? Where is the war-like tendency?

Just a week ago Senator Clinton talked about wiping a nation off the map with nuclear weapons. And let's not forget that Senator Clinton also voted for the very war we are discussing...a vote she has never apologized for (anyone claiming otherwise...please provide a citation). So much of this self-serious criticism is just one-sided, politically motivated bashing (most…not all).

Mea culpa jade, you're sentiments echo Jan's and I assumed your comment about that we "know sooo much about military strategy..." was a response to my post.

Comparing this war to WWII is comparing two completely different situations. I see very few, if any, real similarities between the two wars, so I don't think the fact that we are staying in Iraq longer than we were in WWII is relevant. My thought is this: Petraeus has had a hell of a job and he's done what he could with it. I thought MoveOn's attack was a bit too harsh and that we shouldn't be taking it out on him for doing his job. He is the best man for the job. Can anyone name a general who has had as tough a job as this one has?

mako, i fail to understand what message you are trying to deliver to me, since my post was not a response to what you said...

Jan (and jade),

if you're going to quote, don't take it out of context. In my first post, I clearly included myself in the "uninformed." And if you're truly interested in communicating, perhaps you'll scroll up, actually read what I had to say (even though it differs from your opinion), get a feel for what I'm trying to say, and respond intelligently instead of reacting childishly to a word that, by itself, you found (erroneously) insulting.

As for your son, his choice to join the military and your protectiveness is irrelevant to the point of this thread (that YOU started). Also, I think I get pretty close to addressing what our "strategic interests" are in my original post.

Go, JanforGore.

Obama confirming General Petraeus is a betrayal.

If Hillary Clinton votes to confirm Petraeus, she will hear from me.

I also face the same dilemna JanforGore, describes, "Do I now vote, once again, against my own conscience , or do I just stay home?"

I already voted too many times for the lesser candidate, or the one who couldn't win, who became the Democratic nominee - from 1972 when Ted Kennedy disappointed us with Chappaquiddick, Muskie was destroyed with the fake "Canuck Letter", Eugene McCarthy was considered too radical, Mondale, too party establishment, the only two worthy candidates, Fred Harris and Shirley Chisolm were ignored, and McGovern, the change candidate, lost in a landslide to Nixon, on down through another disappointment with Carter who promised change, but couldn't deliver, to Al Gore who couldn't excite the electorate enough to win after 8 years of relative peace and prosperity under Bill Clinton, to this last round with Kerry who won in the exit polls but didn't have the balls to spend the millions left in his war chest to mobilize Americans to protest in the streets to get our selection, like they did in the Ukraine.
The democratic party has disappointed me enough that this time, I will either vote my conscience and write in Hillary Clinton/John Lewis or John Edwards/Winona LaDuke, or stay home for the first time since I turned 18.
The Democrats should have vetted Obama and run him in 2012 for another 8 years of democratic party rule so we could actually get solid gains.
The Democratic Party leaders keep letting us down.
In 2006, we voted in a democratic congress that promised to end the Iraq War, and they've done nada.
Senators Obama, Clinton and McCain are senators now. They should begin legislation to stop the war now. Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised to do the voters' will after the win in 2008? She's done next to nothing. Howard Dean allowed the democratic primary voters of Michigan and Florida to be disenfranchised.
Most of the democratic party leaders have been disloyal to the voters and America.
If anyone thinks this my refusing to vote the party line if Obama is the nominee is being disloyal, that is their perogative.
All I know is, I am done voting for the democratic nominee against my conscience. And Obama's lie about "the only senate bill I passed" and failure to protect citizens from radiactive leaks, and his flip flops on universal health care and getting troops out of Iraq disqualifies him from getting my vote.
The democratic party has repayed my loyalty over decades with bad choices too many times and I don't trust them at all anymore.
Will probably change my party affiliation to independent or green too.

"My hope is that Petraeus would reflect that wider view of our strategic interest."

Thanks for cutting and pasting the full discussion which is already in the link and proves he is no different in his policy on this war than the current administration. And again, what is meant by "strategic interest?" That was the original question I posed. I know what he said which was why I asked the question.

I got that from mako2424 who was responding to me.

"Did you attend a military academy? Have you spent your entire life learning about and debating military strategy? Didn't think so. And it is in that regard that you ARE more uninformed than a General in the military. "
Well then, by that standard are any of us then qualified to discuss the 'war'? And no, I haven't spent my entire life learning the art of killing, but I do know BS politics when I see it. And just to amend this: No general regardless of how many stars they have on their shoulder is going to control my son's destiny regarding this illegal invasion or extending it elsewhere. But nice way to support your candidate... tell those most effected by this policy that they are "uninformed."

Obama might have the lightest stench, but he still can't pass the smell test. I guarantee that what he says and what he does are not the same. He may have the best talk, but his walk is as crooked as any. I don't see how anyone who does the research could possibly claim otherwise. Least worst might be better than the worst of the worst, but that's as far as my support can go for either Clinton or Obama.

yes, haha because you guys know sooo much about military strategy...

I was responding to Spoon, and I didn't say your opinion was misinformed so I don't know where you got that.
It is your opinion that Iraq will never be ready, and it is my opinion that "hightailin'" it out of there is niether the better solution. I'm willing to leave it at that....thank you.

Did you attend a military academy? Have you spent your entire life learning about and debating military strategy? Didn't think so. And it is in that regard that you ARE more uninformed than a General in the military.

At this point Iraq will never be ready. And my opinion is not uninformed, thank you.

"I simply resent the fact that because I think Obama is the best man for the job that I'm some maniac minion who isn't informed on the issues."
And who stated that in this particular post? You said it here I didn't. And if you think he has a point on this war, then you also agree with Bush, Cheney, and the lot of them because that is their 'logic' as well. And I hardly think it would be "hightailing" it out of there when this invasion has lasted longer than WW2. The Iraqi govt. needs to be told that it is now required to take on the job of real government. This situation is like what happens when a hostage becomes attached to their kidnapper. The longer we stay the more attached they will get. It is time to cut the cord and do something to truly make amends for what we have done, and if Obama or Clinton can't do that, they will hear from me and many others.

To think that any of us know what is the best military strategy for the situation in Iraq, speaks volume about how highly we regard our own opinions regardless of how uninformed they may be.

The war is definitely unpopular and screaming how fast you'd bring our soldiers home is an easy way to get votes. But that doesn't make it the right move. If we set a date for massive troop withdrawals before the infrastructure in Iraq is ready to stand on its own, all hell will break loose in the weeks afterward. Then where will we be? What would 4,000+ American soldiers have died for?

I believe that in terms of war, we should let generals determine strategy--not politicians. General Petraeus has been there, knows the situation, and is probably the best man for the job. The plan is to hand the keys to the Iraqis when the time is right. I like that Barack has backed him. It might be hard to swallow but it's the right move.

Admittedly, it's a sh*tty situation, but being rash and making decisions based on popular opinion is what got us here. Obama, neglecting to nail down the date in which Iraq will finally be in our past might prove to be a screw-up--but lest we forget that getting into this situation was an even bigger mistake...

...and we can all thank Hillary Clinton for her part in that.

For me it comes down to this:

I was not going to vote at all... then i decided I had to vote Democratic to keep McCain out... but I am now torn because I see NONE of them taking the lead on climate change in as drastic a manner as we need to... so it then comes down to the war because I have a teenage son and I wll be damned if I will see this invasion in Iraq or anywhere else go on for the next four years... then I read about this questioning of Petraeus that Touch Art so eloquently eluded to and I think to myself, just what the hell is he playing? Then he says this on FOX, besides his comments regarding Pakistan and nuking them in the debate, and his whole pushing of the Al Quaeda meme and think, he is no candidate of change to me... Then we get to healthcare. No one has a plan to really solve this problem in four years time. It just ain't gonna happen. So then I say, ok, which has the better plan to get us to universal care faster... and for me it is Clinton because of the mandates, though it isn't really much better in terms of really holding insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies to the fire and neither does Obama's, especially when his penalizes people who have children with no coverage and as stated will cover those who "deserve" healthcare whatever that means.

So what do we have to vote on? Pretty speeches? I am way past that stage in my life. With a child and a stake in the future and feeling as passionate as I do about this planet's sustainability, I do not want to blow it all away by once again voting for someone I do not know or those I do not trust to do what they say they will do. We did that with Bush and look what we got. So now I am at the stage where I am wondering: Do I now vote once again against my own conscience , or do I just stay home? My grandmother had a saying about this that I ultimately believe will be my choice: I'd rather stay with the devil I know than the devil I don't know.

And all I know about what he said regarding Petraeus is that if Obama had guts he would walk into that congressional chambers and vote NO to confirm Petraeus. But it is obvious he doesn't really have what it takes to lead. He backs down to the nuclear lobby, the coal lobby, the ethanol lobby, the oil lobby, and the millitary lobby. Don't tell me you are against this war and then do all in your power to keep it going in your own subtle way because you are afraid of losing a couple of votes from people who more than likely voted for Bush. This game is getting VERY tiresome to those of us looking for some truth.

I simply resent the fact that because I think Obama is the best man for the job that I'm some maniac minion who isn't informed on the issues. I keep seeing this kind of sentiment. If Obama doesn't win the nomination, I am willing to look at McCain because at the very least, I know what he's all about. I know where he stands on the issues, whether or not their all smoke and mirrors. For instance, I think he may have a point on the war. I'm not so sure packing our bags and hightailin' it out of Iraq is the wisest decision. These politicians aren't Gods. They can't be all things to all people. The best we can do is elect the person we think appeals to our senses. Sometimes, they might all stink. I find Obama has the lightest stench.

yeah sure he will.

Truth, Spoon.

I never said (and do not believe) HIllary's health care plan is any better than Obama's. I'm very unhappy with them (plans and candidates) both. The best thing I can say about either is that they're barely better than McCain, and not just on health care but Iraq, protecting the environment, (lack of) campaign finance reform, on and on. Better than McCain is not good enough.

If the crowds gave a damn about democracy they'd bother to do a day's worth of homework and demand better of both Obama and Clinton on issues that really truly matter. All three major candidates are blowing smoke and mirrors, and we're falling for it. I'm not clutching at straws but looking at the meat going to corporate interests while we the people are being thrown bones.

Thank you Touchart, for paying more attention than most. I think we all need to be paying a LOT more attention.

"I'd like to know what Americans do not deserve health care, and what situation does not change?"

I think we're grasping at straws here. Obama and Hillary's plans are the same, except Hillary's plans mandate that you take it whether or not you want it. I consider myself quite informed and while skeptics and
critics continue to lump all Hillary or Obama supporters into the cultist mentality, at least for once, "those large crowds going gaga over meaningless platitudes" give a damn about our democracy again.

"Oh, wouldn't the world seem dull and flat with nothing whatever to grumble at?" -W.S. Gilbert

I heard Obama say he would get our troops out of Iraq "unless the situation on the ground changes".

I also heard him say that by the end of his first term as President, every American "WHO DESERVES HEALTH CARE" will be covered.

I'd like to know what Americans do not deserve health care, and what situation does not change?

We need to be holding these candidates feet to the fire. Watching large crowds going gaga over meaningless platitudes frightens me more than a little bit.

And where are all the Obama supporters now talking about this? I guess if it has substance it isn't discussion worthy? He also talked on FOX about what ideas Republicans had that were good. He basically said he thought it was OK for polluters to police themselves without the "red tape". I guess that explains his nuke bill in Illinois. I'm not liking him more and more everytime he speaks because it is in smoothtalking riddles. And what a slap this is to MOVE ON that endorsed him. Weren't they the ones who put out the "Betrayus" ad? Just whose side is he really on? Just his own? Those of us with children out here seeing this war NOT ending are NOT going to take another four years of this evasive crap.

nice JanforGore its hard to follow up that comment so im just gonna give you props.

If that doesn't scream 'agenda' at you, then nothing will.

Word. JanforGore.

And just what would that "strategic interest" be? Notice he didn't say take troops out of Iraq and send them home. I don't trust any of them regarding the military. I think they are all just too damned vague about what they mean. And the fact he said this on FOX news of all places where it didn't look like he did or said anything to "take it to them" after complaining about the MSM only looks like more pandering to Republicans. I will wait to see if Clinton votes to confirm him as well. It is becoming apparent to me that the more I hear 'poltics of change' the more hollow it rings.