I do not believe Obama will end the Iraq War

[ArizonaJosie]

I think he would get in there, listen to the military and others for cover, and then claim that it would not be in our national interest to leave before we have a stabilized situation there.

I do believe that he would not allow us to get into any further tragic misadventures of this kind but I believe that about Hillary also. So it is a wash when it comes to that issue. IMHO

[Johnny__Motown]

1. Well if a Clinton supporter says it then it must be true, changed my mind. NOT

[LWolf]

55. I think the same, and I'm not a supporter of HRC.

Not that I would expect ANY non-supporter of Obama to change your mind, lol.

[FrenchieCat]

2. But you believe that Hillary will.......even with Penn Blackwater running her campaign?

That's just plain Weird! :crazy:

Delivered on 26 October 2002 at an anti-war rally

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

Defense Industry Embraces Democrats, Hillary By Far The Favorite

The defense industry this year abandoned its decade-long commitment to the Republican Party, funneling the lion share of its contributions to Democratic presidential candidates, especially to Hillary Clinton who far out-paced all her competitors.

An examination of contributions of $500 or more, using the Huffington Post's Fundrace website, shows that employees of the top five arms makers - Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics -- gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to Republicans.

Senator Clinton took in $52,600, more than half of the total going to all Democrats, and a figure equaling 60 percent of the sum going to the entire GOP field. Her closest competitor for defense industry money is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R.), who raised $32,000.

Insofar as defense workers making political donations reflect the interests of their employers, the contributions clearly suggest that the arms industry has reach the conclusion that Democratic prospects for 2008 are very good indeed. Since their profits are so heavily dependent on government contracts, companies in this field want to be sure they do not have hostile relations with the White House.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/17/defense-industry-embraces_n_68927.html


Weapons Industry WarLords Back Hillary Clinton, along with Wall Street Investment Bankers: her position on wars is like Lieberman Options
http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/72ddcef300b05e2a


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101907O.shtml

[ArizonaJosie]

3. Could just be a self-serving statement to get into the US Senate.

[FrenchieCat]

6. And how would it be "Self Serving" in 2002, running a statewide campaign?

Could you back your shit up with some sources on that?

And, while you are at it, please comment on the Defense Industries loving your Goddess of Peace of the Alternate Universe.

Thanks....oh, and Welcome!

[ArizonaJosie]

14. You are going to be disillusioned I'm afraid

No one can say with any authority HOW Obama would have voted on the IWR in October of 2002. All we have are the self-serving staements of Obama and the Obama-serving statements of his supporters.

[KLee]

21. the important point is...

Hillary did

[ArizonaJosie]

35. I disagree

We are eelcting a president, people makemistakes. Obama has not offered any proof as to hismotivation for being against the Iraq War. All it can be is blind faith in him.

[Zachstar]

46. If he does not end the Iraq war he will face a big loss in 2012 and maybe even impeachment.

People are PISSED at this congress who has failed the people TIME AND TIME AGAIN when it comes to the Iraq war. Get a president in there that is going to start pulling a Bush on the Iraq war and he is toast.

Don't worry! I think more than enough Obama supporters will keep his feet to the fire on the war issue. In my view it is 6 months from his first day or his political future is in trouble.

[ArizonaJosie]

47. He will not do it

I have seen this movie before and he will not do it. The best that can be hoped for is that he will not start another. Hillary might...Bush or McCain certainly would. IMHO

[Zachstar]

49. I dont know what to say to you then.

Except maybe you ought to have a little hope!

Im reading reports that the chance to fix the climate issue has passed. If I listened to them than I ought to not be posting on a forum but just playing video games and smoking tobacco... Hope is what keeps me alive and supportive of Obama.

Yet I am not Blind. Fool me once (Current Congress) shame on you. Fool me twice.. shame on me. I will not be supportive of any kind of plan to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq going into 2010. Obama knows the people are tired of this war that is bankrupting the United States and the Military. He will not let it continue to eat away at us!

If Hillery somehow suspects Obama might pull some kind of stay in Iraq crap (Which I do not see any reason to think that will happen) than she needs to exit now and start plans for a 2012 run. She will need to find a way to get past all this late desperation ammo that has been stockpiled. (Cannon rounds being the backlash from her phone ad)

If Obama tries to stay in Iraq he is politically doomed. He will not do it. The people say GET OUT!! and he will listen!

[Hepburn]

31. The important FACT is that your queen...er...

...Hillary agreed to let Monkey Ass in the WH send thousands to their deaths.

Get it? :eyes:

[ArizonaJosie]

34. True, that is cetainly bad for her

But Obama has not been shown to be any different.

[Hepburn]

38. Please post a link to where Obama in fact voted for the IWR.

TIA.

[ArizonaJosie]

40. Ridiculous request

You have no proof, other than the possible self-serving statements of Obama himself, that he would have voted against the IWR. Beyond that, you could not possible know his motives as to why he would have voted against the IWR.

What you are displaying is "blind faith" something I thought I would only see on an evangelical board.

[Alexander]

48. Hillary won't even set a deadline for withdrawal. Obama did.

I'm not sure either one of them will end the war. But I'm about 30% sure with Obama, whereas I'm about 20% sure with Hillary and 0% sure with McCain.

[ArizonaJosie]

50. There will be no withdrawal until the military

says mission accomplished.

[nonconformist]

7. She'll have a great running mate to help her make that decision

He was campaigning with her in Texas today

[FrenchieCat]

10. Bait......cause she sure in the hell didn't support Clark in 2004 for his run.....

So I'm betting that she'll do the switcharoo!

[elleng]

12. Frenchie, you sure may be right.

And she's worn him ragged this time around. See photo?

[FrenchieCat]

19. Yes. and I'm none too pleased.

retire him early, don't support him in his bid....and then have him run himself ragged for the Clinton's benefit.

Wes is simply just too kind to these folks.....bless his heart!
That's what I'm thinking. :mad:

[elleng]

56. Ditto.

Maybe too kind and wise for any of us to deserve.

[jackson_dem]

16. Not formally. She was officially neutral but many of Clark's aides were Clintonites

Clark isn't stupid. He knows she didn't shaft him in 2004 as you seem to be suggesting.

[FrenchieCat]

20. You mean Clark's aides that counseled him not to contest Iowa?

Yeah....I remember them coming from the Clinton camp. How convenient! :eyes:

[jackson_dem]

22. lol get real!

They sabotaged Clark now? :rofl: Is Clark, a Rhodes Scholar, so stupid he can be played so easily? Clark did the logical thing given his late entry. It worked four years prior for McCain and Bradley was ahead in New Hampshire against an incumbent VP before he decided to go to Iowa for a knockout blow. If he remained focused on New Hampshire he would have gotten an even bigger bounce out of New Hampshire than McCain did given who he was competing against. Even in 2008 had Hillary listened to the guy who said she should skip Iowa she would have at least been better off than she is now and perhaps would be the front-runner at this point. Clark was an exception in modern times because we looked at the polls and voted for the candidate who was seen as the most electable without vetting him and analyzing his flaws. Sound familiar?

[FrenchieCat]

23. Nope, doesn't sound familiar.

And as smart as Wes is, he himself has admitted that he didn't know much about politics and so he let the "experienced" ones lead the way. Look at where that got him. :(

[jackson_dem]

24. It didn't work but it was a smart strategy given his situation

Iowa has only launched two Democratic victors out the blue and Carter still lost several primaries afterwards. 2004 was a freak year. Kerry came back from the dead and won 46 states. No one could have predicted that. Had Gephardt or Dean won Iowa, as expected, Clark would have been very well-positioned for New Hampshire. Had Dean won Iowa Clark may have lost New Hampshire because Dean would have had momentum out of Iowa and was from neighboring Vermont, although this scenario would also mean Kerry would effectively be unviable and many of his supporters would have shifted to Clark for New Hampshire so Clark still may have won NH under this scenario. The ideal for Clark would have been Gephardt winning Iowa with Dean somehow finishing 3rd (it is hard to see Edwards and Kerry rising in Iowa if Dean and Gephardt didn't commit their murder-suicide). That would have hurt Dean in New Hampshire just like losing Iowa hurt Romney in NH this year, would have cemented Kerry's also ran status. Gephardt would have done what he did in 1988 and proceed to lose New Hampshire to Clark. Gephardt was just never strong in New Hampshire. After that it would be on to Mini Tuesday and Clark won Oklahoma anyway and it would have been Clark, not Kerry, who would have won the western states that voted that day. Edwards would have probably still won South Carolina. Missouri would go to Gephardt. End result: Clark is the uber-front-runner coming out of MT like Kerry ultimately was.

Come on. Are you telling me the guy who planned an ultra-successful war in Kosovo couldn't think of a basic strategy for his campaign?

[BenDavid]

4. The problem that I have written all along is if G-d forbid if obama

is the president, he will not begin the pullout like he is campaigning on. At least HRC has left the door open on this.....The differences is obama will have to do teh following: One he will have to go against the Generals on teh ground that says we cannot pull out of Iraq as soon as you want. Two, he will go against the Joint Chiefs if they say we cannot pull out of Iraq as you want....If obama tries to even if he is president and goes against his military commanders there will be an all out revolt and all his top generals will resign in protest....

HRC has left the door open for the above not to happen if the generals on the ground tell her we cannot leave that quick and the joints chiefs say the same. She will listen to them and then as she said for them to begin forming a plan to get out.....

If I were HRC I would tell obama this is not 2002 and we all know you were against the war from teh brginning but as president you have to play the cards that you are dealt and that is we are in iraq and in a war and that damn speech of yours amounts to nothing because this is real time and real lives we are talking about....

[Recursion]

15. The military wants out

At least the brass in the Corps does. I don't keep tabs on Army leadership but it's hard to imagine they feel any different.

No general likes seeing his branch ground into the dust for no appreciable gains.

Now, the specific generals in command don't want out yet because that would end their career, and once you're on the ground it's almost impossible not to believe in your fight. But the four-stars in the Pentagon have had enough, from everything I've seen.

[Hepburn]

32. Why don't you just go over to the other side?

You seem to be there already. After all, the only one who wants to stay forever is McCain. Seems to fit your agenda better than either of the remaining two Dems.

Are you really a Dem....or do you just play one on a Message Board?

[Warren Stupidity]

33. yeah we better stay the course

after all we cannot afford to fail.

Should we go for 2,000,000 Iraqis and $6,000,000,000,000 and 10,000 of our soldiers? Or double down on that?

[ArizonaJosie]

36. Good points

[sandnsea]

5. Yep, "they're both the same" strategy

Clintons trying to dampen enthusiasm any way they can.

[mac2]

8. Not after his "terrorist" speech on CSPAN.

He's into the Islamic terrorism lie. He's a war monger and globalist.

[FrenchieCat]

11. Yeah....right!

and Hillary and McCain are the Goddess and the God of Peace!

Whatever! :crazy:

[jackson_dem]

17. That isn't a lie. Obama will fight terrorism, which is real, just like any other president would

[mac2]

51. Exactly who are the "terrorists" since on 911 their names

were lies by Ashcroft. The FBI admitted some were still alive. The alleged "terrorists" weren't even on the passenger lists. Why not?

Before doing any protecting shouldn't we know who they were? The whole Iraq, Afghanistan destruction (Shock & Awe in Iraq) was based on Ashcroft's lies.

Governments do lie their people into war. We don't want to send our young to die.

Senator Durbin (D-IL) has talked over and over that the Iraq WMD were a lie.

"Terrorist" mean to Bush anyone who is in his way...including American citizens.

[mac2]

9. Deleted

[elleng]

13. What means 'end the Iraq War?'

Is that really, pull the troops out immediately?

Few advocate that; even richardson changed his mind, to provide some reasonable time to get it together. So I agree, its a wash.

[eridani]

18. If either would end the war, not to mention forswearing imperialism--

--they would not have been allowed to be frontrunners. There is still pressure from below--that means you and me, people.

[Adelante]

25. Welcome to DU, ArizonaJosie

:hi:

[saltpoint]

26. The Iraq War as an issue of acute concern to many voters has definitely

not been a 'plus' issue for Sen. Clinton.

[MadHound]

27. Hell of a lot better chance of Obama stopping than Clinton

After all, Hillary has repeatedly stated that she would be keeping combat troops, going on combat missions, in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

Furthermore, this is an issue of accountability. Hillary helped to enable this illegal, immoral war, and it is time for her to be held accountable for her actions. Perhaps next time she'll do the right thing.

I realize that her IWR vote is a huge problem for Hillary's campaign, but you simply can't whitewash it away. Her actions have cost a million people their lives, wrecked two countries, and helped bring about the economic downfall of the US. She has to be held accountable.

[susankh4]

28. Neither does the founder of the Daily Kos

He has just renounced Obama as the anti war candidate:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml

Apparently Clinton and Edwards are doing a better job of standing up to Mr. Bush.

Surprise, surprise. (Do ya think *experience* may have anything to do with that?)

[mmonk]

29. I do not believe your strategy will work.

[ArizonaJosie]

37. Strategy? What are you talking about?

I am pointing out possible scenarios.

[rodeodance]

30. NEW***** clinton introduces legis. to get Blackwater types out!!--Here

Obama sitting on the fence

come on over-Read and -give it a Rec.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4830683

[bvar22]

42. Hillary has NOT "Introduced" legislation to remove Blackwater.

At BEST, she has "co-sponsored" (BIG difference) something that may limit the the use of Paid Security Forces in Iraq.

The reports are very vague, mostly from Hillary Blogs, and lacking any details.
The timing of this announcement, and Hillary (& Obama's) history of IGNORING this issue, give me serious doubts about the legitimacy of this claim.

This report certainly does NOT pass the smell test based on Hillary's performance over the last 4 years when the TRUTH about mercenaries in Iraq became known.

Despite the Flag Waving & Fireworks of the Hillary supporters, I would caution ALL Duers to take this "announcement", and the conversion of Hillary to the Anti-Mercenary (Contractor) cause with a HUGE grain of salt until further details and verification emerge.

"Co-Sponsoring" legislation is NOT the same as "Introducing" legislation, and the poster making the claim that Hillary has "introduced" this legislation KNOWS this.

[Mass]

39. Thank you for telling us your opinion.

Do you have any fact to base it on or is it just that, an opinion? Not that there is anything wrong with having an opinion, just trying to see why I should care.

[ArizonaJosie]

43. Because it equals the Obamamaniacs opinions

[Mass]

44. So, I should not care any more than theirs. Thanks for letting me know.

[Honeycombe8]

41. The new Dem. President will probably have a powwow w/new Sec of Def., Sec of State, and others....

and come to a decision about future plans for our involvement in Iraq. I hope the new President DOES listen to the military. S/he should, being Commander in Chief. But s/he is also civilian, and policy making falls on the President's shoulders.

This whole business of the Repubs leaning on what Gen. Patraius thinks about Iraq is baloney. It is not the military's job to decide on foreign policy for America. The military's job is to execute missions, and to lay out strategies for those military missions, as instructed by the civilian government.

But the President SHOULD listen to the key military persons about facts on the ground, military strategies, what can or cannot be accomplished militarily, thoughts about the future as regards military personnel in Iraq, number of troops needed, etc., etc.

I don't think any President will be able to leave Iraq immediately. And I'm not sure we should. It would be horrible if we left abruptly, and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians were murdered by insurgents. Or their homes taken, or various other ways made to suffer. Maybe that won't happen. I don't know.

What I expect from the new President is sincerely have a dialog with his/her cabinet to come up with a well thought out exit strategy, and to start implementing it...and changing it, if necessary. It may take a few years to get out safely without the Iraqis suffering. But we might also be able to leave within a year. I expect our leaders to have this goal, though, and to pursue it however they deem best.

[dansolo]

45. Then the matter becomes "How do you stabilize the situation"

Neither Clinton nor Obama have direct experience in dealing with this type of situation, so both of them will rely on advisors to help them to resolve the situation in order to get our troops out. This is where I don't trust Clinton's judgment.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mtnsnake]

54. I think there could be a lot of truth to what you're saying. Good post!

Anyone who thinks it's a sure bet that he'll end the war is naive, but we already knew that his supporters are the most naive of the naive. lol