You know, I have mixed emotions about this war...but this speech by Obama just seemed a little bizarre to me and I want to address it:
CHICAGO — The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.
Um. This has been the Bush Plan from the start. "when Iraqi troops can take over, we'll pull out troops."
The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.
As much as we value every single American life, this is the smallest amount of deaths we've ever suffered in any war. Wasn't the toppling of Saddam worth going into Iraq for? What about the intelligence we saw at the time? Why aren't you discussing the yellow cake that was recently moved, which even the Assoc. Press admitted was "part of Saddam's nuclear ambition". WHAT? I thought he had no ambitions and there was no stockpiling supporting those ambitions?
In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.
But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.
Wouldn't you say this is a great step for Iraq? The surge accomplished what you just complimented, Mr. Obama. Funny, the left's always talking about the horrid things we've done to Iraq; if we only HAD, wouldn't it have included taking their oil?! Maybe we should have just taken some of those tens of billions we deserve, huh? I mean, if it WAS 'for OIL", why aren't we ROLLING in it?
The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.
NOW you've got it, Barack! THIS was exactly what we've been waiting and hoping for in Iraq. You were the one against this war, now YOUR plan is to capitalize on exactly what George Bush had said might happen? The good news is this is exactly what we hoped for......but, you're still saying you were against this war..!! Could we have come to this point (Saddam gone, Iraqis ready to take over) without it?
Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.
It's NUMBERS, Barack. Would you take EVERYONE out of there in 2009? You really think all those lives we lost aren't worth sticking around a bit to make SURE the Iraqis can take over?
But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.
As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.
Not ALL American people think staying is a bad thing, Barack. PLEASE don't speak for me. Ah, so now you're touting and planning the exact thing Bush and McCain had originally hoped for? GOOD, Barack..glad to hear it.
In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.
Oh, and just how do you plan to protect our interests with no troops left behind to do exactly that? Which countries in the region are so happy to support US? Iran? Syria? Saudi Arabia? WHAT? Which of these countries are SO friendly to us that they'd help us? And, I guess your idea of supporting Iraq's refugees is bringing them all to California, RIGHT?
Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.
Barack...everybody wants to reduce our commitment to Iraq, buddy. That IS the 'plan' you say never existed.
As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
BARACK OBAMA: WAR EXPERT.
In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.
WHAT is the difference between keeping some presence in S. Korea and keeping a presence in Iraq? Aren't Iraqis as important as S. Koreans? Mightn't we need to have something there in case we have problems in IRAN? Do you think IRAN likes us there? Doesn't it send a pretty good message to Iran to behave while America's deployed over there, right next door?
It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.
No, they're not false charges, pal...they're valid. And Americans do NOT surrender.
good speech, Barack...now write it again with love of America, safety for Iraqis, and a dislike for Iran's government as your motivation. That might help. Thanks.
What do you all think? Help me out here........................
