Why I do not think Obama will get the U.S. out of Iraq nor is he a Progressive

[Orwellian_Ghost]

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs
April 23, 2007

...

In a speech five months ago, I argued that there can be no military solution to what has become a political conflict between Sunni and Shi’a factions. And I laid out a plan that I still believe offers the best chance of pressuring these warring factions toward a political settlement – a phased withdrawal of American forces with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31st, 2008.

I acknowledged at the time that there are risks involved in such an approach. That is why my plan provides for an over-the-horizon force that could prevent chaos in the wider region, and allows for a limited number of troops to remain in Iraq to fight al Qaeda and other terrorists.

...

We must maintain the strongest, best-equipped military in the world in order to defeat and deter conventional threats. But while sustaining our technological edge will always be central to our national security, the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now face. This is why our country’s greatest military asset is the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States.

...

No President should ever hesitate to use force – unilaterally if necessary – to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened. But when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others – the kind of burden-sharing and support President George H.W. Bush mustered before he launched Operation Desert Storm.

...

In order to advance our national security and our common security, we must call on the full arsenal of American power and ingenuity. To constrain rogue nations, we must use effective diplomacy and muscular alliances.

...

As starting points, the world must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and work to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. If America does not lead, these two nations could trigger regional arms races that could accelerate nuclear proliferation on a global scale and create dangerous nuclear flashpoints. In pursuit of this goal, we must never take the military option off the table. But our first line of offense here must be sustained, direct and aggressive diplomacy. For North Korea, that means ensuring the full implementation of the recent agreement. For Iran, it means getting the UN Security Council, Europe, and the Gulf States to join with us in ratcheting up the economic pressure.

...

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fpccga

I encourage everyone to read this entire speech that Obama gave in April of 2007. There is nothing here that speaks to me of change.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. I think he'll buckle under the pressure. nt

[TwilightGardener]

2. He's not a total Kucinich-style peacenik. He's a realist, and serious

about defense and national security. That's why he'll get elected in November. Same with Hillary, should she win the nom.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

3. What

does any of that mean?

What is a "realist?"

As far as I can tell the parameters of that term have been manufactured.

When most of the country wants the troops out now and wants universal health care and yet Obama goes for neither that's realistic? Maybe we need to get a new language for this thing.

And of course "peacenik" has it's own dismissive qualities accrued to it by the PTB.

As to why they might get nominated you might look elsewhere for the answer, like the corporate controlled media that presents us with a playing field skewed beyone comprehension. It has nothing to do with realism. That's another media concoction.

[stillcool]

4. I appreciate the effort...

and understand the sentiment. It just is so repetitive. My favorite candidates are Edwards, and Obama. However, every time I see a post that attempts to deride, ridicule, slur, defame, conflate..etc.,etc., this man I feel compelled to say something in his defense. This...ironically enough...has the effect of influencing my support for him...go figure. Go Obama!!

[Orwellian_Ghost]

5. But what about

the speech? Did you read the entire speech? Don't you find it a little disturbing?

What would you say specifically in defense of the speech he made?

[stillcool]

6. I am not defending his speech..

I am defending his candidacy. I believe that all of these candidates...sans Kucinich...have made murmurs to various groups to appease or qualm fears regarding their candidacy. There is probably more written about Edwards, because he's been in the political arena longer...but I am not going to go searching to cull articles. I don't think it's worth my time...it's a tit for tat game that I am not interested in playing...nor do I wish to extrapolate what future events may be real based on such a speech. We could be here all day. If there were one thing that would help me in my decision between Edwards and Obama, it would be the people they would choose as their cabinet members...but of course,...that we find out too late.