Obama 05: reshape strategy into an aggressive and workable plan that will ensure success in Iraq

[agdlp]

This is quite something else than he has been telling voters. Not a single word saying the war is wrong,...but calls for
" an aggressive and workable plan that will ensure success in Iraq" and "What we owe them in return is a clear, viable plan for success that will bring our soldiers home to their families as soon as possible."


-------------
WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today released the following statement about President Bush's Iraq war speech:

"The American people want and deserve better answers about where we go from here in Iraq.

"With operations costing nearly $5 billion per month, a dramatic decline in recruitment in our armed forces, and ever extending tours of duty for our men and women in uniform, the President needs to realize that the current approach is not working in Iraq. I believe the President must take a realistic look at our current strategy and reshape it into an aggressive and workable plan that will ensure success in Iraq.

"For that to happen, the Administration must establish clear benchmarks and take immediate action to accomplish the goals of getting the Sunnis involved in the political process, completing the Constitution and holding elections on time, making the Iraqi army more representative and a more effective fighting force, and expanding international participation, in both reconstruction and security force training, in Iraq.

"Our men and women are performing magnificently in Iraq under some of the most difficult conditions imaginable. More than 1,700 have already paid the ultimate price for our country. What we owe them in return is a clear, viable plan for success that will bring our soldiers home to their families as soon as possible."

--------------

http://votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=173173

[AX10]

1. kick

[2rth2pwr]

2. He was for the surge before there was a surge. nt

[FrenchieCat]

4. They all were.....remember?

During the Clinton years, her public image was shaped, fairly or not, by her participation in protests against the Vietnam War while she was in college. She also stood in the shadow of a husband known for his often tense relations with the armed services over issues like gays in the military.

In recent speeches and interviews, as well as in votes in the Senate, she has emerged as a staunch ally of the armed services and a strong proponent of a forceful American military presence abroad.

On Iraq, for example, she has stood by her vote authorizing the president to wage war and has argued for a greater troop presence there, to the chagrin of some liberals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/nyregion/13hillary.ready.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
----------------------------------------------

Still, Obama is the one who opposed the war from the start and has been more aggressive about calling for a withdrawal. Shouldn't he be getting more support from the get-out-now crowd? And although Romney supports the war, McCain is the dead-endest of the dead-enders. If you don't like the war, shouldn't he be your least favorite candidate
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_01/012872.php
----------------------------------------
Hillary Clinton and the Iraq war resolution: At what point did she cry foul?

When did Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton first publicly express her outrage at the betrayal of White House promises that were made to her to secure her vote in favor of the 2002 resolution authorizing the Iraq war?

In the Sunday "Meet the Press" appearance that fanned the flames of Clinton's current contretemps with Sen. Barack Obama, Clinton chided interviewer Tim Russert for an excessive interest in such historical questions, terming them "jesuitical."

Russert didn't ask her my precise question. I have requested an answer from the Clinton campaign, received none, but the early results of my research into the question are surprising and troubling.

Clinton and some of her supporters often argue that it no longer matters much who did what in the run-up to the war, it matters who can end it. Maybe, but I'm not so sure.

Believing that the war was a preventable disaster, I want to know who did what they could to prevent it. It might help us guess who would be least likely to get us into the next one.
http://www.minnpost.com/ericblack/2008/01/15/582/hillary_clinton_and_the_iraq_war_resolution_at_what_point_did_she_cry_foul
-----------------------------------------




-----------------------------------------
As a member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Clinton strongly supported military action in Afghanistan, saying it was a chance to combat terrorism while improving the lives of Afghan women who suffered under the Taliban government.<201> Clinton voted in favor of the October 2002 Iraq War Resolution, which authorized United States President George W. Bush to use military force against Iraq, should such action be required to enforce a United Nations Security Council Resolution after
pursuing with diplomatic efforts. (However, Clinton voted against the Levin Amendment to the Resolution, which would have required the President to conduct vigorous diplomacy at the U.N., and would have also required a separate Congressional authorization to unilaterally invade Iraq.<191> She did vote for the Byrd Amendment to the Resolution, which would have limited the Congressional authorization to one year increments, but the only mechanism necessary for the President to renew his mandate without any Congressional oversight was to claim that the Iraq War was vital to national security each year the authorization required renewal.)<191>

In late 2005, Clinton said that while immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake, Bush's pledge to stay "until the job is done" is also misguided, as it gives Iraqis "an open-ended invitation not to take care of themselves." She criticized the administration for making poor decisions in the war, but added that it was more important to solve the problems in Iraq.<204> This centrist and somewhat vague stance caused frustration among those in the Democratic party who favor immediate withdrawal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

[FrenchieCat]

3. So pitiful of you.......I'm not even sure what you are saying.....

Hell, Edwards was still proud of his vote and co-sponsorship of the IWR at that time!

Desperate in NH: Fibbing About Obama and Iraq?
Campaigning in Dover, New Hampshire the day before the primary, Senator Hillary Clinton once again pounded Barack Obama for being big on talk and small on deeds. And before a crowd that could barely fill half of a modest-sized gymnasium, she continued to claim that Obama is a disingenuous politician, no noble and inspiring force of change. Using the thin opposition research her campaign operatives have managed to unearth on her rival, she recited what's becoming the campaign's regular litany of Obama's alleged hypocrisies. Saying you oppose the Patriot Act and then voting to extend it—"that's not change," she declared. Saying you're against special interest lobbying and then having a lobbyist co-chair your New Hampshire campaign—"that's not change," she thundered. Saying in a campaign speech that you will not vote to fund the Iraq war and then voting for $300 billion in war financing—"that's not change," she exclaimed. After the event, in an interview with Fox News, Clinton was even sharper. She referred to Obama's (and John Edwards') "hypocrisy," and said, "Senator Obama has changed many of his positions." Voters, she insisted, deserved to know this: "Talk is, as they say, cheap."

Her charges against Obama have generally been weak—standard truth-stretchers for standard political campaigns. But in casting Obama as a phony on the Iraq war, Clinton has veered close to outright lying.

Yesterday, in an interview with CNN, Clinton said:

If someone is going to claim that by their very words they are making change, then if those words say... I'm against the war in Iraq and I'll never vote for funding and then, when they go to the Senate, they vote for 300 billion dollars' worth of funding , I think it's time for people to say, "Wait a minute, let's get real here." There's a big difference between talking and acting, between rhetoric and reality.
Did Obama actually vow, as Clinton said, to never vote for funds for the Iraq war? If he had, he would indeed be a major promise-breaker—and a fraud on a critical issue for Democratic voters. This was a powerful allegation.

I sent an email to a Clinton spokesperson who specializes in opposition research, asking for a citation to back up this charge. He quickly replied with a link for a page on a Clinton campaign website that contains a quote from a speech Obama delivered in November 2003, when he was running for Senate:

Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars , I said no. I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance.
Is it possible to read that statement as a promise never to vote for Iraq war funds? Not by any reasonable interpretation. In fact, during Obama's Senate campaign, he explained his opposition to this particular war funding bill in detail. From a September 29, 2003 Obama press release:

Obama challenged the Congress to 'stand up to the misplaced priorities of this Administration' by delaying the $87 billion for Iraq until the President provides a specific plan and timetable for ending the U.S. occupation, justifies each and every dollar to ensure it is not going to reward Bush political friends and contributors, and provides 'investment in our own schools, health care, economic development and job creation that is at least comparable' to what is going to Iraq. 'It's not just Iraq that needs rebuilding. It's America, too,' Obama said.
Perhaps as an opponent of the Iraq war, Obama could have been expected to vote against funds for the war once he reached the Senate. But he, like Clinton (who now opposes the war) and other Senate Democrats, have continually voted for funds, while attempting (albeit unsuccessfully) to attach conditions and timetables to that funding. Because Clinton cannot attack Obama on the policy—given that they have voted the same—she has accused him of being a hypocrite. But where was the beef?

I sent the Clinton oppo guy a follow-up email:

I looked at the quote . He was clearly speaking about the $87 billion package. But what Sen. Clinton told CNN was that Obama said, "I'll never vote for funding." He doesn't say that in the quote. Was she accurately quoting him?
I received no response.

As Hillary Clinton was leaving Dover, I attempted to put the question to her. She had just finished the interview with Fox and another with a local station. Inside the gym, I was two feet away from her. "Can I ask you one question about Iraq and Senator Obama?" I inquired. She looked at me for a nanosecond and walked away.

During her speech to supporters at Dover, Clinton said, that it's important to disseminate information on all the candidates "so voters can make a well-informed decision.... I will do whatever I can to make sure voters have the information they need." But ascertaining that this information is accurate is apparently not on her to-do list.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6786_desperate_in_nh_1.html

Responding to Clinton’s attack on Iraq

IRAQ: Obama Consistently Opposed the Iraq War. In January of 2005, Obama criticized Condoleezza Rice for not offering a timetable for withdrawal; in February he criticized the Administration’s policy in Iraq while praising our troops; in May and June, he called security in Iraq “horrible” and criticized the Administration for linking the 9/11 attacks and the war in Iraq; and in October and November, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops, saying that we should “get out as soon as we can.” Obama called for a phased withdrawal of our troops in November of 2005 and voted for an amendment stating that the US should not “stay in Iraq indefinitely.” He consistently called for troop withdrawal throughout 2006, and voted for a resolution in June urging the President to begin troop withdrawal during 2006. Obama spoke out against the surge the same night Bush announced it, and introduced his bill to end the war at the end of January, which would have prohibited the surge and set a timetable for withdrawal of all combat troops by the end of March 2008. That bill became the template for the Democratic caucus’ position.

IRAQ: Obama Has Consistently Opposed A Blank Check for Iraq. Since Obama came to Washington in January of 2005, every single Senate Democrat has voted for every single Iraq funding bill that has come to the Senate floor until President Bush vetoed a timetable for withdrawal. After that, Obama voted against funding for the war, stating that “This vote is a choice between validating the same failed policy in Iraq that has cost us so many lives and demanding a new one…We should not give the President a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path. With my vote today, I am saying to the President that enough is enough. We must negotiate a better plan that funds our troops, signals to the Iraqis that it is time for them to act and that begins to bring our brave servicemen and women home safely and responsibly.”

IRAQ: Clinton Continues to Unfairly Truncate Obama’s Quote on Iraq. Below is the full excerpt from the New York Times:

“He opposed the war in Iraq, and spoke against it during a rally in Chicago in the fall of 2002. He said then that he saw no evidence that Iraq had unconventional weapons that posed a threat, or of any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. “In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.

“‘But, I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.’

“But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ‘What I don’t think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,’ he said.”
http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-memo-on-clintons-mtp-iraq-statements/

[FrenchieCat]

5. Kick for the hypocrites to read!