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

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I honestly doubt any of them will honor a strict pull-out date - Iraq goes to pieces, it'll be on them. Regardless of whether or not they supported it in the first place.

Edited March 9, 2008 by Number 6

[kaydee457 13]

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?

Lucky guess and given the limited data he had an irresponsible statement given that troops were being deployed in harms way....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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?

Lucky guess and given the limited data he had an irresponsible statement given that troops were being deployed in harms way....

It wasn't really a lucky guess was it. Wasn't this pretty much what the previous Bush administration determined as a reason not to remove Saddam after the first gulf war?

And how, exactly, is it irresponsible to say that?

[kaydee457 13]

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?

Lucky guess and given the limited data he had an irresponsible statement given that troops were being deployed in harms way....

It wasn't really a lucky guess was it. Wasn't this pretty much what the previous Bush administration determined as a reason not to remove Saddam after the first gulf war?

And how, exactly, is it irresponsible to say that?

Irresponsible in the same way as it was, and still is irresponsible to lambaste the war by forming ones opinion based on information that one reads in publications such as the NY Times......

U.S. Presidents are privy to much more information than the likes of a junior State Senator from Illinois. His opinion was based in ignorance of the current situation.

Anyone can have an opinion, and have that opinion, in retrospect, appear to be insightful, but in this instance it's just dumb luck to be so.

The first war fought in IRAQ was an entirely different mission. The "mission" was to liberate Kuwait, not to occupy IRAQ, and the "coalition" was confined to that mission and would likely not have followed the U.S. in a regime change in IRAQ. That was the agreed upon mandate.

The second go around had exactly that as the objective, and it succeeded.........

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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?

Lucky guess and given the limited data he had an irresponsible statement given that troops were being deployed in harms way....

It wasn't really a lucky guess was it. Wasn't this pretty much what the previous Bush administration determined as a reason not to remove Saddam after the first gulf war?

And how, exactly, is it irresponsible to say that?

Irresponsible in the same way as it was, and still is irresponsible to lambaste the war by forming ones opinion based on information that one reads in publications such as the NY Times......

U.S. Presidents are privy to much more information than the likes of a junior State Senator from Illinois. His opinion was based in ignorance of the current situation.

Anyone can have an opinion, and have that opinion, in retrospect, appear to be insightful, but in this instance it's just dumb luck to be so.

The first war fought in IRAQ was an entirely different mission. The "mission" was to liberate Kuwait, not to occupy IRAQ, and the "coalition" was confined to that mission and would likely not have followed the U.S. in a regime change in IRAQ. That was the agreed upon mandate.

The second go around had exactly that as the objective, and it succeeded.........

You might not be aware but it wasn't just Obama who held that opinion... I still don't understand exactly how his opinion amounts to "irresponsibility".

I say #### the President and his "inside information". 8 years and all the guy has done is prove that he can't find his a$$ with both hands.

[Jasman0717 9]