Obama says he's 'been very consistent' on Iraq

[Dos Equis]

 

Obama says he's 'been very consistent' on Iraq

ST. LOUIS, Missouri (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama, speaking on board his campaign plane as it headed to St. Louis on Saturday, continued to defend his position on Iraq -- and questioned reporters' parsing of his words.

"I am surprised at how ... the press ... I'm not trying to dump on you guys, but I'm surprised at how finely calibrated every single word was measured," Obama said.

"I wasn't saying anything that I hadn't said before. That I didn't say a year ago. Or when I was a U.S. senator. If you look at our position, it's been very consistent. The notion that we have to get out carefully has been a consistent position," he said.

"The belief that we have a national security interest in making sure Iraq is secure, I've been saying consistently," he added. Noting "the worst-case scenarios and the parade of horribles that has been trotted out by [Sen.] John McCain and others about genocide if we left," he said he has always reserved "the right to protect people from genocide."

"So a lot of these statements that I've made have been entirely consistent," Obama added.

Late Saturday afternoon, McCain's campaign responded to Obama's comments.

In a statement, campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said, "We are all absolutely committed to ending this war, but on Thursday Barack Obama's words indicated that he also shared John McCain's commitment to securing the peace beforehand. What's really puzzling is that Barack Obama still doesn't understand that his words matter."

. . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/05/campaign.wrap/index.html

[2ND COMING]

why are you rolling your eye's?

to question his policy, or patriotism..wait..let's be real..anyone in his position will no doubt abide by the intelligence that is fed to him..nor does he have a fuking say in the matter of military operations. He'll do what is best suited for the 'cause and interest of the u.s.

[Dos Equis]

why are you rolling your eye's?

to question his policy, or patriotism..wait..let's be real..anyone in his position will no doubt abide by the intelligence that is fed to him..nor does he have a fuking say in the matter of military operations. He'll do what is best suited for the 'cause and interest of the u.s.

I'm rolling my eyes because his contention that he would withdraw 1 to 2 brigades a month and have the war over in a matter of months was campaign garbage, never realistic, uninformed, and purely an attempt to garner votes. 
 

[2ND COMING]

meh..i'm pretty sure, under an obama regime..there will be a little less than 160k trops in iraq

i think that's what he means...i'm not voting for him anyway

[240 is Back]

100 years bitches.

[Dos Equis]

meh..i'm pretty sure, under an obama regime..there will be a little less than 160k trops in iraq

i think that's what he means...i'm not voting for him anyway

I'm not voting for him either, but there is eventually going to be a RIF regardless of who gets elected.  It just will not be the 1 to 2 brigades a month that Obama promised.   

[240 is Back]

I'm not voting for him either, but there is eventually going to be a RIF regardless of who gets elected.  It just will not be the 1 to 2 brigades a month that Obama promised.  

and it won't be the 100 years that Mccain supposed.

It'll be whatever the generals and joint chiefs decide.

It'll be 2-3 years to move out all combat forces, and 58 bases there permanently to guard oil pipeline against indian/china lines, and keep an eye on russie.


It's saudi arabia 2, on our terms.

[MCWAY]

and it won't be the 100 years that Mccain supposed.

It'll be whatever the generals and joint chiefs decide.

That's what President Bush has been saying for years. Why is this, all of sudden, such good talk, coming from Obama?

It'll be 2-3 years to move out all combat forces, and 58 bases there permanently to guard oil pipeline against indian/china lines, and keep an eye on russie.


It's saudi arabia 2, on our terms.

McCain never supposed 100 years. If you've seen that interview, you'll know he was being sarcastic. Plus, he pointed out that, for decades, we have had military bases in countries, that warred with us at one point in time (Korea, Japan, Germany, etc.). That doesn't mean we're going to be fighting with Iraq for a century.

[240 is Back]

McCain never supposed 100 years. If you've seen that interview, you'll know he was being sarcastic. Plus, he pointed out that, for decades, we have had military bases in countries, that warred with us at one point in time (Korea, Japan, Germany, etc.). That doesn't mean we're going to be fighting with Iraq for a century.

Do you think it's in good judgment for the leader of the free world to use confusing sarcasm about occupation of a nation?

Would it be hilarious if Bush cracked a joke about letting 911 happen?  Would it be just banans if Dick Cheney sarcastically admitted the war was about oil?

Our enemies hang on every word our leaders say and use it for propaganda purposes.  That "why not make it 100 years" was surely used as propaganda for some young jihadists.  Just like when Mccain said "never again will we be forced to go to war for oil".  That shit is irresponsible.

[youandme]

I'm rolling my eyes because his contention that he would withdraw 1 to 2 brigades a month and have the war over in a matter of months was campaign garbage, never realistic, uninformed, and purely an attempt to garner votes. 
 

He has not been to Iraq yet. It's kind of like making a chess move and not even knowing where your opponents pieces are.

I'm not going to put "faith in [this one] American(s)" based on the pretenses of failure!!

[240 is Back]

He has not been to Iraq yet. It's kind of like making a chess move and not even knowing where your opponents pieces are.

Eh, that's a weak one here.

He's a senator, he sees a ton of intel on the place that we never do.  He has access to all sorts of intelligence reports and resources. 

And Presidents make decisions about lots of places they've never been.

And, it's up to the generals anyway.

And, Mccain has been there 8 times and can't stop making gaffes about it... was mistaken in saying patraeus doesn't use ehicle armor, was mistaken in saying that market is safe, etc.

[Colossus_500]

Busted! 

[youandme]

Eh, that's a weak one here.

haha how is it weak when that is his position even after he has read "intel"

[Colossus_500]

I bet the verbiage on Obama's won't look like this in the next couple of days.  Some web-developer is under a massively heavy deadline to get this page updated ASAP! Specifically this bullet point:

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

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#bring-home

[headhuntersix]

Eh, that's a weak one here.

He's a senator, he sees a ton of intel on the place that we never do.  He has access to all sorts of intelligence reports and resources. 

And Presidents make decisions about lots of places they've never been.

And, it's up to the generals anyway.

And, Mccain has been there 8 times and can't stop making gaffes about it... was mistaken in saying patraeus doesn't use ehicle armor, was mistaken in saying that market is safe, etc.

He does not attend the committee's he sits on. He chairs a sub committe on Afghanistan, that he's never brought together. He barely votes. He has never gotten a brief by the Joint Chiefs...he has no clue what the hell he's talking about.

[youandme]

I bet the verbiage on Obama's won't look like this in the next couple of days.  Some web-developer is under a massively heavy deadline to get this page updated ASAP! Specifically this bullet point:

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

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#bring-home

Wow cool, we will have to keep an eye on that then. And I bet you are right.

[Colossus_500]

http://patterico.com/2008/07/07/your-assignment-compile-obamas-flip-flops/

[Dos Equis]

Busted! 

Wow.  And we're going to put this guy in charge of the military?   

[Dos Equis]

I bet the verbiage on Obama's won't look like this in the next couple of days.  Some web-developer is under a massively heavy deadline to get this page updated ASAP! Specifically this bullet point:

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

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#bring-home

From the link:

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.

[Colossus_500]

From the link:

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.

Bet'cha anything this site will be revised by Saturday.  lol

[Dos Equis]

Bet'cha anything this site will be revised by Saturday.  lol

I won't take that bet.  But we here at getbig will hold his feet to the fire.   

[OzmO]

Wow.  And we're going to put this guy in charge of the military?   

I agree.  But in retrospect.  Can't be any worse than BUSH. 

As far as McCain, I'm not all that secure in thinking he'll make good decisions either.

[Dos Equis]

I agree.  But in retrospect.  Can't be any worse than BUSH. 

As far as McCain, I'm not all that secure in thinking he'll make good decisions either.

The standard shouldn't be "no worse than Bush."  It should be which of the two will be the better CIC.  Pretty easy decision for me.  Just look at the crucial decision regarding the surge.  McCain was on one of the few who supported it.  Some said his presidential candidacy would live or die based on the surge's success. 

Obama, on the other hand, not only said the surge wouldn't work, he said it would increase violence.  I don't think the man should be anywhere near control of the armed forces. 
 

[OzmO]

The standard shouldn't be "no worse than Bush."  It should be which of the two will be the better CIC.  Pretty easy decision for me.  Just look at the crucial decision regarding the surge.  McCain was on one of the few who supported it.  Some said his presidential candidacy would live or die based on the surge's success. 

Obama, on the other hand, not only said the surge wouldn't work, he said it would increase violence.  I don't think the man should be anywhere near control of the armed forces. 
 

There are many other reasons, I'm sure, that can brought up as to why he shouldn't be CIC.  However, considering the state of Iraq at the time, and the years to took to come to the conclusion of a solution, it seemed reasonable to think that the surge wouldn't work.

[Colossus_500]

I agree.  But in retrospect.  Can't be any worse than BUSH. 

Actually, with what Obama's campaign is saying as of late, things could get MUCH worse!