Obama: "It was because of George Bush with an assist from Hillary Clinton and John McCain that we entered into this war"

[no name 1]

The fact is that Barack wasn't in the U.S. Senate at the time and frankly, as with most of this freshman Senator's record, we will never know how he would have voted, for or against.

It's too easy to say at this time, retrospectively, that he was against the war in totality.

Would he have been if he were in the U.S. Senate? Or would this vote be just another "present"?

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh, and here's a direct quote from his own website where he states that:

He said the war would lead to "an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences."

He was quite correct when he made that assessment. As I say, he now wants us to believe he has the answer? You don't see the problem here?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think that's a fair criticism. Barack was against the war from the start - kudos to him for that. Still as it stands right now, that fact doesn't help the current situation, nor does it help us get out of Iraq. For better or worse we're stuck there for the forseeable.

Then again - none of the candidates have a magic solution for this mess and anyone who thinks they do isn't being realistic.

Personally I don't think Iraq will rate very highly when it comes to the general election.

[Joe&Ghe 0]

Oh, and here's a direct quote from his own website where he states that:

He said the war would lead to "an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences."

He was quite correct when he made that assessment. As I say, he now wants us to believe he has the answer? You don't see the problem here?

Nobody has the answer..but he has put in the best possible solution to today's crisis..No othe candidates has put out their so-called pull-out plan like the way he did..Everyone REALLY knows that he cannot solve all the problems in this world..but I & most people right now feel much more inclined to give him the power to change the direction of this country than to hand-it over to the SAME-old politicians in washington. Yes, he is playing politics like everyone else, but there hasn't been any negativity that comes out of him in this election unlike Hillary. To asnwer you no I don't have any problems with that, he made a good assessment didn't he? I read his plans in a pamphlet, he swung me in his direction because of that. I was leaning Hillary in 2007 but there's no substance, so I changed my mind. I have yet to see Hillary''s detailed plan yet..I'm tired of the war & tired of this economic recession.

Edited March 9, 2008 by Joe&Ghe

[no name 1]

Oh, and here's a direct quote from his own website where he states that:

He said the war would lead to "an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences."

He was quite correct when he made that assessment. As I say, he now wants us to believe he has the answer? You don't see the problem here?

Nobody has the answer..but he has put in the best possible solution to today's crisis..No othe candidates has put out their so-called pull-out plan like the way he did..Everyone REALLY knows that he cannot solve all the problems in this world..but I & most people right now feel much more inclined to give him the power to change the direction of this country than for to hand-it over to the SAME politicians in washington. Yes, he is playing politics like everyone else, but there hasn't been any negativity that comes out of him in this election. To asnwer you no I don't have any problems with that, he made a good assessment didn't he? I read his plans in a pamphlet, he swung me in his direction because of that. I have yet to see Hillary''s detailed plan yet..I'm tired of the war & tired of this economic recession.

I suggest you source more than a 'pamphlet' if you are going to claim you know his policies.

PS: Hillary has been quote clear about her Iraq plan in all the debates - it begins within 60 days of her inauguration. More here: http://hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/

Also - it's not 'you & most people' who want Obama - about half of those Dems want Hillary.

Edited March 9, 2008 by illumine

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Take your pick:

Hillary Clinton on Iraq

Hillary Clinton has announced her plan to end the war in Iraq and urged President Bush to act immediately.

"Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today.

"We have heard for years now that as the Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down. Every year, we hear about how next year they may start coming home. Now we are hearing a new version of that yet again from the president as he has more troops in Iraq than ever and the Iraqi government is more fractured and ineffective than ever.

"Well, the right strategy before the surge and post-escalation is the same: start bringing home America's troops now."

If President Bush does not end the war, when Hillary Clinton is president, she will. Her three-step plan would bring our troops home, work to bring stability to the region, and replace military force with a new diplomatic initiative to engage countries around the world in securing Iraq's future. Hillary has been fighting every day in the Senate to force the president to change course. And today she described how she would bring the war to an end.

Starting Phased Redeployment within Hillary's First Days in Office: The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration. She would also direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to prepare a comprehensive plan to provide the highest quality health care and benefits to every service member -- including every member of the National Guard and Reserves -- and their families.

Securing Stability in Iraq as we Bring our Troops Home. As president, Hillary would focus American aid efforts during our redeployment on stabilizing Iraq, not propping up the Iraqi government. She would direct aid to the entities -- whether governmental or non-governmental -- most likely to get it into the hands of the Iraqi people. She would also support the appointment of a high level U.N. representative -- similar to those appointed in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo -- to help broker peace among the parties in Iraq.

A New Intensive Diplomatic Initiative in the Region. In her first days in office, Hillary would convene a regional stabilization group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all of the states bordering Iraq. The- mission of this group would be to develop and implement a strategy to create a stable Iraq. It would have three specific goals:

Non-interference. Working with the U.N. representative, the group would work to convince Iraq's neighbors to refrain from getting involved in the civil war.

Mediation. The group would attempt to mediate among the different sectarian groups in Iraq with the goal of attaining compromises on fundamental points of disputes.

Reconstruction funding. The members of the group would hold themselves and other countries to their past pledges to provide funding to Iraq and will encourage additional contributions to meet Iraq's extensive needs.

As our forces redeploy out of Iraq, Hillary would also organize a multi-billion dollar international effort -- funded by a wide range of donor states -- under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to address the needs of Iraqi refugees. And as we replace military force with diplomacy and global leadership, Hillary will not lose sight of our very real strategic interests in the region. She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.

Barack Obama on Iraq

The Problem

The Surge: The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq's political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq's civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war.

Military Strain: The military is being severely strained by repeated and lengthy deployments. The Army and Marine Corps are facing a crisis as 40 percent of their equipment is either in Iraq or being repaired. This crisis has led many of our generals to conclude that current demands make our forces unable to rapidly respond to the contingencies we may face in the future.

Barack Obama's Plan

Judgment You Can Trust

As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.†Obama has been a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq.

In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail;

In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;

In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors;

In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.

In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.

Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Press Iraq’s Leaders to Reconcile

The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.

Regional Diplomacy

Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.

Humanitarian Initiative

Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.

John McCain on Iraq

Bolster Troops on the Ground

A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq. More troops are necessary to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to halt sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias; to dismantle al Qaeda; to train the Iraqi Army; and to embed American personnel in Iraqi police units. Accomplishing each of these goals will require more troops and is a crucial prerequisite for needed economic and political development in the country. America's ultimate strategy is to give Iraqis the capabilities to govern and secure their own country.

Implement New Counterinsurgency Strategy

For most of the occupation, military strategy has focused on securing all of Iraq by establishing bases and conducting short operations from them. Ultimately, this secured only small areas of the country. John McCain believes the current force structure and power vacuum persisting in many areas of the country demands a more robust counterinsurgency strategy. Iraqi and American forces must not only use force to clear areas occupied by insurgents but to stay and hold these areas to deny them as a base for insurgent forces and allow economic and political development to occur in a secure environment. By emphasizing safety of the local population, this strategy will create strongholds in which insurgents find it difficult to operate.

Strengthen the Iraqi Armed Forces and Police

Building a capable Iraqi army is a central requirement for ensuring Iraq's ability to govern and protect itself long after American forces have withdrawn. The U.S. must accelerate the training and equipping of Iraqi armed forces and police to enable them to play a key role in securing Iraq. Only in a secure environment will the development of Iraq's political and economic institutions have a chance to succeed. Ultimately, Iraq's future lies in the hands of its people, government, and armed forces, and strengthening them is an essential requirement for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq. Until Iraqi forces are ready, however, a precipitous U.S. withdrawal would condemn Iraq to civil war and intervention by its neighbors and energize al Qaeda and other jihadists across the globe. This would gravely jeopardize American security.

Create the security necessary for political progress and stability

John McCain believes that only by controlling the violence in Iraq can we pave the way for a political settlement. But once the Iraqi government wields greater authority, it will be incumbent upon Iraqi leaders to take significant steps on their own. These include a commitment to go after the militias, a reconciliation process for insurgents and Baathists, more equitable distribution of government resources, provincial elections that will bring Sunnis into the government, and a large increase in employment-generating economic projects.

Accelerate political and economic reconstruction in a secure environment

While it is crucial to focus military efforts on insurgents, particularly against Sunni fighters using violence to strengthen their political position, John McCain believes there must be a greater emphasis on non-military components promoting economic development and representative, accountable governance.

In territories newly secured by the "clear, hold, and build" counterinsurgency strategy, many of the critical steps to succeeding in Iraq can begin to be implemented. Massive reconstruction can go forward without overwhelming fear of attack and sabotage. A substantial employment program can begin to give hope and opportunity to Iraqi citizens. Political meetings and campaigning can take place more freely. Average Iraqis will be more secure as militias and terrorists are reigned in and violence reduced. All of this will help civil society to emerge and deepen.

Iraqis need to see tangible improvements in their daily lives or support for the new government will falter. Sunnis need to know that if they abandon violence they will have a role in the political process, and the Shia need to know that security will be provided by coalition and government forces - not by private militias. Kurds need assurance that their gains will not be jeopardized by sectarian violence. All Iraqis must be able to look forward to a future of growing security and prosperity overseen by a competent, representative government free of corruption and sectarian conflict.

Keep Senior Officers in Place

The Pentagon has adopted a policy of rotating our generals in and out of Iraq almost as frequently as the rotating of troops. John McCain believes this to be a deeply flawed practice. If these are, in fact, the best leaders for the task, they should remain on the job as long as possible. These generals and other senior officers with experience possess critical situational awareness and expertise necessary to prevail.

Call for International Pressure on Syria and Iran

John McCain believes Syria and Iran have aided and abetted the violence in Iraq for too long. Syria has refused to crack down on Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists operating from within its territory. Iran has aided the most extreme and violent Shia militias, providing them with training, weapons, and technology that they have used to kill American troops.

The answer is not to enter into unconditional dialogues with these two dictatorships from a position of weakness. The answer is for the international community to apply real pressure to Syria and Iran to change their behavior. The United States must also bolster its regional military posture to make clear to Iran our determination to protect our forces in Iraq and to deter Iranian intervention in that country.

Win the Homefront

If efforts in Iraq do not retain the support of the American people, the war will be lost as soundly as if our forces were defeated in battle. A renewed effort at home starts with explaining precisely what is at stake in this war to ensure that Americans fully understand the high cost of a military defeat. The war in Iraq is at a crossroads and the future of the entire region is at stake - a region that produced the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 and where much of the world's energy supplies are located. Success is essential to creating peace in the region, and failure would expose the United States to national security threats for generations. Defeat in the war would lead to much more violence in Iraq, greatly embolden Iran, undermine U.S. allies such as Israel, likely lead to wider conflict, result in a terrorist safe haven in the heart of the Middle East, and gravely damage U.S. credibility throughout the world.

The American people also deserve to know that the path ahead will be long and difficult. They have heard many times that the violence in Iraq will subside soon - when a transitional government is in place, when Saddam is captured, when elections are held, when a constitution is in place. John McCain believes it is far better to describe the situation just as it is - difficult right now, but not without hope. The stakes for America could not be higher.

John McCain on Leadership

"Increasing U.S. troop levels will expose more brave Americans to danger and increase the number of American casualties. When Congress authorized this war, we committed America to a mission that entails the greatest sacrifice a country can make, one that falls disproportionately on those Americans who love their country so much that they volunteer to risk their lives to accomplish that mission. And when we authorized this war, we accepted the responsibility to make sure those men and women could prevail. Extending combat tours and accelerating the deployment of additional troops is a terrible sacrifice to impose on the best patriots among us, and they will understandably be disappointed when they are given that order. Then they will shoulder their weapons and do everything they can to protect our country's vital interests in Iraq."

Edited March 9, 2008 by Number 6

[Joe&Ghe 0]

Also - it's not 'you & most people' who want Obama - about half of those Dems want Hillary.

Correction ---its the independents, republicans, & most democrats wants OBAMA..half of the Dems that support her ain't gonna win it for Hillary come November.

[no name 1]

Also - it's not 'you & most people' who want Obama - about half of those Dems want Hillary.

Correction ---its the independents, republicans, & most democrats wants OBAMA..half of the Dems that support her ain't gonna win it for Hillary come November.

Are you aware of the current nomination contest (& it's results)?

And, Obama not getting those 'big' states, isn't going to win it for him in November.

Edited March 9, 2008 by illumine

[Peikko 1,575]

My objection to it is that he is playing a game, the same game as all politicians but while he's playing the game, he is pretending that he's not playing it.

On Iraq, he's not selling us the real solution, the years of diplomatic efforts because that wouldn't get him votes. He's playing up his "I didn't vote for this war" card but playing down his prediction of years of mess for which there isn't an easy solution. He's promising bringing troops home on a particular date, regardless of what might be happening on that date, he's selling us on the quick fix which cannot be guarenteed. Again, if he wasn't selling himself as the candidate who doesn't play games, this wouldn't really be a big deal, but he is so I find this disingenous.

I also think this particular statement is highly offensive:

"The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving."

As I said, that's like saying no one in Iraq is making an effort and all that needs to be done is make a little threat and things will all work out nicely. ####### is what I say to that.

[Peikko 1,575]

I think that's a fair criticism. Barack was against the war from the start - kudos to him for that. Still as it stands right now, that fact doesn't help the current situation, nor does it help us get out of Iraq. For better or worse we're stuck there for the forseeable.

Then again - none of the candidates have a magic solution for this mess and anyone who thinks they do isn't being realistic.

Personally I don't think Iraq will rate very highly when it comes to the general election.

Probably true, if the economy continues to tank, Iraq isn't going to figure to high up on the list of things the US citizen cares a ####### about.

[Joe&Ghe 0]

Also - it's not 'you & most people' who want Obama - about half of those Dems want Hillary.

Correction ---its the independents, republicans, & most democrats wants OBAMA..half of the Dems that support her ain't gonna win it for Hillary come November.

Are you aware of the current nomination contest (& it's results)?

And, Obama not getting those 'big' states, isn't going to win it for him in November.

You reasoning is bad..California will always go democratic way..so to say that he can't win 'BIG' states that is ridiculous..what was it 25% down in Texas a long time ago..and in just 2 weeks he closed the gap so much that he only lost by 2 freaking percent?

[Joe&Ghe 0]

I think that's a fair criticism. Barack was against the war from the start - kudos to him for that. Still as it stands right now, that fact doesn't help the current situation, nor does it help us get out of Iraq. For better or worse we're stuck there for the forseeable.

Then again - none of the candidates have a magic solution for this mess and anyone who thinks they do isn't being realistic.

Personally I don't think Iraq will rate very highly when it comes to the general election.

Probably true, if the economy continues to tank, Iraq isn't going to figure to high up on the list of things the US citizen cares a ####### about.

Economy & Iraq are the biggest right now..I would rather USE the billions of dollars in our economy than to lose it everyday in Iraq.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Also - it's not 'you & most people' who want Obama - about half of those Dems want Hillary.

Correction ---its the independents, republicans, & most democrats wants OBAMA..half of the Dems that support her ain't gonna win it for Hillary come November.

Are you aware of the current nomination contest (& it's results)?

And, Obama not getting those 'big' states, isn't going to win it for him in November.

You reasoning is bad..California will always go democratic way..so to say that he can't win 'BIG' states that is ridiculous..what was it 25% down in Texas a long time ago..and in just 2 weeks he closed the gap so much that he only lost by 2 freaking percent?

Speaking of California...good news for Obama!

Certification Day In California

by: David Dayen

Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:29:34 AM PST

Today the results of the February 5 primary become official. The final spread in the popular vote between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is 8.9%. Clinton garnered 51.8% to Obama's 42.9%. The final delegates will be 203 for Clinton to 167 for Obama. (Clinton lost 4 delegates and Obama gained 4.) This roughly averages out to the exact spread in the head-to-head popular vote (Hillary got 54.6% of the head-to-head vote and 54.8% of the delegates), so the convoluted delegate apportionment system worked in the case of California.

http://calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5248

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think that's a fair criticism. Barack was against the war from the start - kudos to him for that. Still as it stands right now, that fact doesn't help the current situation, nor does it help us get out of Iraq. For better or worse we're stuck there for the forseeable.

Then again - none of the candidates have a magic solution for this mess and anyone who thinks they do isn't being realistic.

Personally I don't think Iraq will rate very highly when it comes to the general election.

Probably true, if the economy continues to tank, Iraq isn't going to figure to high up on the list of things the US citizen cares a ####### about.

Economy & Iraq are the biggest right now..I would rather USE the billions of dollars in our economy than to lose it everyday in Iraq.

Put simply, this is what comes from voting $hitheads into office. We shouldn't have gone into Iraq, it was a horrible, shitty, badly thought out idea. But we did. And in the process destroyed the country, its infrastructure, killed many thousands of people and took the lid of decades worth of sectarian rivalries. We made the mess - its really our responsibility to clean it up, regardless of feel-good promises from people who want to get our votes.

If we withdraw from there now - it will be exactly the same as every other interventionist war the US has ever fought. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq - all half arsed, half baked engagements. Iraq does have to be stabilised, for better or worse. It may impoverish our economy, and run-up prodigious amounts of foreign debt - but someone should have thought of this before... They didn't - and we get to inherit the mess. For the next 5, 10 or 20 years. It sucks - but there it is.

I personally think that the Democratic candidates have the worst plans for handling Iraq - it sounds to me as though they're simply telling people what they want to hear and I think it would be a mistake for them to use these plans as the centerpiece of their eleciton strategy. That's not to say that McCain has a marvellous plan either, given that he would be essentially maintaining the status quo from the Bush administration. Of all the candidates I've a feeling that he'll be running largely on National Security.

Edited March 9, 2008 by Number 6

[peejay 327]

I personally think that the Democratic candidates have the worst plans for handling Iraq - it sounds to me as though they're simply telling people what they want to hear and I think it would be a mistake for them to use these plans as the centerpiece of their eleciton strategy.

It kind of reminds me of Nixon's "secret plan" to get us out of Vietnam that he used to get elected in 1968. We all know how that turned out.

However, it didn't hurt him as he beat the anti-war candidate McGovern to get re-elected in 1972. Go figure!

Unpopular wars make for unusual politics. It's hard to predict what will happen with this one.