Clinton and Obama Iraq views

July 30, 2007;

Mrs. Clinton has said she would vote for a proposed Democratic resolution on Iraq now being debated on the floor of the Senate, which sets a goal of withdrawing combat forces by March 31, 2008. Asked if her plan was consistent with the resolution, Mrs. Clinton and her advisers said it was, noting that the resolution also called for ?a limited number? of troops to stay in Iraq to protect the American Embassy and other personnel, train and equip Iraqi forces, and conduct ?targeted counterterrorism operations.?

August 2007;

Obama - "When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won," he told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the District. He added, "The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Obama's warning to Musharraf drew sharp criticism from several of his rivals for the Democratic nomination, but not from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.).
Obama delivered a biting critique of President Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq and of the administration's overall strategy for combating terrorism, while seeking to reassure Americans that his long-stated opposition to the Iraq war would not compromise his commitment to defending the country from the threat of Islamic extremists.

Heard on CNN this morning that if elected, Obama would have the troops out of Iraq by 2013, and Clinton by the end of her term. What??? What about all the stink to get them out now?

We are not leaving Iraq anytime soon.

I think the "nuance" is in regards to all the troops. I don't believe they can have ALL the troops out in 2013, and definitely not now. Troops will remain in some capacity to ensure that our interests are protected.

What about all the antiwar protestors who support either Clinton or Obama? Or are they behind someone else?

What about all the antiwar protestors who support either Clinton or Obama? Or are they behind someone else?

The context of the question in the debate by Tim Russert is "will you pledge to have all troops out of Iraq by 2013" His point was will it happen before your first term is over. He didn't make them agree to anything earlier so they didn't. The quote is a little misleading.

Kucinich said he would have them out by Sept 2007 before they reminded him it was Sept 2007 :roll:

What about all the antiwar protestors who support either Clinton or Obama? Or are they behind someone else?

What are they going to do, vote for Rudy? Fuhgetaboutit. They will promise anything to get elected;they know they can't withdraw troops anytime soon.

Agreed

We are not leaving Iraq anytime soon.

In October 1969 the Shah of Iran asked the U.S. to purchase more Iranian oil as a way to boost his revenues. But the Shah's request was rejected because, as an assistant to then President Nixon explained, "a substantial portion of the profits from these purchases would go to non-American companies if Iranian oil were sought," while if Saudi oil were purchased, the U.S. share would be larger

Logic doesn't seem to be a player anywhere with the protestors, I guess they'll follow the next candidate that will promise them immediate withdrawal? Or perhaps when it comes time to vote, the majority isn't really of that tenor?

In 1971, the rock group The Who released the antiwar anthem Won't Get Fooled Again. To most in my generation, the song conveyed a sense of betrayal by the nation's leaders, who had led our country into a costly and unnecessary war in Vietnam. To those of us who were truly counterculture?who became career members of the military during those rough times?the song conveyed a very different message. To us, its lyrics evoked a feeling that we must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it. Never again, we thought, would our military's senior leaders remain silent as American troops were marched off to an ill-considered engagement. It's 35 years later, and the judgment is in: the Who had it wrong. We have been fooled again. From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. click here for link on sroty in it's entirety from Sunday, Apr. 09, 2006 By LIEUT. GENERAL GREG NEWBOLD (RET.)

I think the "nuance" is in regards to all the troops. I don't believe they can have ALL the troops out in 2013, and definitely not now. Troops will remain in some capacity to ensure that our interests are protected.

Unfortunately, we can't just leave Iraq or all of the lives and hundreds of billions will have been for nothing. I don't have access to a time machine, so we're there and committed.

I think a better question is how soon can we get OTHER countries to help us. More than 25 countries are involved, yet we comprise more than 90% of the troops. I don't know what percentage of the cost we are bearing, but I think it is also quite disproportionate. Additionally, IMO a great deal of the anti-American feeling in Iraq and the Middle East is because of our majority role - much harder to focus hatred across 6 continents and 25 countries.

Unfortunately, we can't just leave Iraq or all of the lives and hundreds of billions will have been for nothing. I don't have access to a time machine, so we're there and committed.

I think a better question is how soon can we get OTHER countries to help us. More than 25 countries are involved, yet we comprise more than 90% of the troops. I don't know what percentage of the cost we are bearing, but I think it is also quite disproportionate. Additionally, IMO a great deal of the anti-American feeling in Iraq and the Middle East is because of our majority role - much harder to focus hatred across 6 continents and 25 countries.

I agree completely.

Just a reminder about Mujahedin-e Khalq; AKA PMOI; The People's Mujahedin of Iran ...... Our troops are in harms way with more than one enemy...

• The series of mortar attacks and hit-and-run raids during 2000 and 2001 against Iranian government buildings; one of these killed Iran’s chief of staff
• The 2000 mortar attack on President Mohammad Khatami’s palace in Tehran
• The February 2000 “Operation Great Bahman,” during which MEK launched 12 attacks against Iran
• The 1999 assassination of the deputy chief of Iran’s armed forces general staff, Ali Sayyad Shirazi
• The 1998 assassination of the director of Iran’s prison system, Asadollah Lajevardi
• The 1992 near-simultaneous attacks on Iranian embassies and institutions in 13 countries Assistance to Saddam Hussein’s suppression of the 1991 Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish uprisings
• The 1981 bombing of the offices of the Islamic Republic Party and of Premier Mohammad-Javad Bahonar, which killed some 70 high-ranking Iranian officials, including President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei and Bahonar Support for the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by Iranian revolutionaries
• The 1970s killings of U.S. military personnel and civilians working on defense projects in Tehran

In the early 1970s, angered by U.S. support for the pro-Western shah, MEK members killed several U.S. soldiers and civilians working on defense projects in Iran. Some experts say the attack may have been the work of a Maoist splinter faction operating beyond the Rajavi leadership’s control. MEK members also supported the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, in which 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days.

_____________________________________________________

lest we forget al-Qaeda.......->From the official FBI website;

• [SIZE=-1]The greatest threat is from al-Qaeda cells in the US that we have not yet identified. The challenge of finding and rooting out al-Qaeda members once they have entered the US and have had time to establish themselves is our most serious intelligence and law enforcement challenge.[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=-1]In addition, the threat from single individuals sympathetic or affiliated with al-Qaeda, acting without external support or surrounding conspiracies, is increasing, in part because of heightened publicity surrounding recent events such as the October 2002 Washington metropolitan area sniper shootings and the anthrax letter attacks.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Our investigations suggest that al-Qaeda has developed a support infrastructure inside the US that would allow the network to mount another terrorist attack on US soil. Such an attack may rely on local individuals or use these local assets as support elements for teams arriving from outside the US. The al-Qaeda-affiliated group we arrested in Lackawanna, New York is one example of the type of support available to the al-Qaeda network. These US citizens received military training in an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan.[/SIZE]

• [SIZE=-1]Many of the US-based cells are relatively recent additions to the al-Qaeda network, leaving open the possibility that more established networks that significantly pre-date the September 11 attacks have been successful in evading detection.[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=-1]Besides funding and recruiting opportunities, the US offers al-Qaeda a unique platform to research and acquire sophisticated capabilities in new technologies, particularly in the areas of WMD and communications.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Al-Qaeda appears to be enhancing its support infrastructure in the US by boosting recruitment efforts. Al-Qaeda no doubt recognizes the operational advantage it can derive from recruiting US citizens who are much less likely to come to the attention of law enforcement and who also may be better able to invoke constitutional protections that can slow or limit investigative efforts.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Al-Qaeda's successful attacks on September 11 suggest the organization could employ similar operational strategies in carrying out any future attack in the US, including cell members avoiding drawing attention to themselves and minimizing contact with militant Islamic groups in the US. They will also maintain strict operational and communications security.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]We must not assume, however, that al-Qaeda will rely only on tried and true methods of attack. As attractive as a large-scale attack that produced mass casualties would be for al-Qaeda and as important as such an attack is to its credibility among its supporters and sympathizers, target vulnerability and the likelihood of success are increasingly important to the weakened organization. Indeed, the types of recent, smaller-scale operations al-Qaeda has directed and aided against a wide array of Western targets—such as in Mombassa, Bali, and Kuwait and against the French oil tanker off Yemen—could readily be reproduced in the US.[/SIZE]

This is just straight sad....
I doubt we are going to be out by 2013 PROBABLY longer
on the fact that bush is either thinking about or has sent 21,000 more troops
OK!
Great
More innocent people being murdered...
Im talking about our troops AND Iraqi people not to mention all the other areas
we've got up our butts!

I fell your pain GK; but the good news is this:

This is just straight sad....
I doubt we are going to be out by 2013 PROBABLY longer
on the fact that bush is either thinking about or has sent 21,000 more troops
OK!
Great
More innocent people being murdered...
Im talking about our troops AND Iraqi people not to mention all the other areas
we've got up our butts!

hmm...

In 1971, the rock group The Who released the antiwar anthem Won't Get Fooled Again. To most in my generation, the song conveyed a sense of betrayal by the nation's leaders, who had led our country into a costly and unnecessary war in Vietnam. To those of us who were truly counterculture?who became career members of the military during those rough times?the song conveyed a very different message. To us, its lyrics evoked a feeling that we must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it. Never again, we thought, would our military's senior leaders remain silent as American troops were marched off to an ill-considered engagement. It's 35 years later, and the judgment is in: the Who had it wrong. We have been fooled again. From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. click here for link on sroty in it's entirety from Sunday, Apr. 09, 2006 By LIEUT. GENERAL GREG NEWBOLD (RET.)

This is a really good read, Biff. Thanks.

Heard on CNN this morning that if elected, Obama would have the troops out of Iraq by 2013, and Clinton by the end of her term. What??? What about all the stink to get them out now?

But bush has NO plan to get them out at ALL...
End of her term is sounding better and better..But thats still not good enough..

We will be stuck in Iraq longer than Vietnam. Oil is becoming more, not less important because our leadership is asleep regarding alternate fuels.

We will be stuck in Iraq longer than Vietnam. Oil is becoming more, not less important because our leadership is asleep regarding alternate fuels.

It can't just be blamed on our leadership - we support our involvement in wars like Iraq every day with our purchases and habits!

We're there because we USE so much oil! Cut consumption by even a small amount and prices and need will drop. Conserve energy, demand and support alternative fuels, and take our dependance out of the picture!

I'm not advocating an uncomfortable "granola" lifestyle, just pointing out that every day you make many small choices that can have major repurcussions, while causing you little, if any, discomfort.

July 30, 2007;

Mrs. Clinton has said she would vote for a proposed Democratic resolution on Iraq now being debated on the floor of the Senate, which sets a goal of withdrawing combat forces by March 31, 2008. Asked if her plan was consistent with the resolution, Mrs. Clinton and her advisers said it was, noting that the resolution also called for ?a limited number? of troops to stay in Iraq to protect the American Embassy and other personnel, train and equip Iraqi forces, and conduct ?targeted counterterrorism operations.?

August 2007;

Obama - "When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won," he told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the District. He added, "The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Obama's warning to Musharraf drew sharp criticism from several of his rivals for the Democratic nomination, but not from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.).
Obama delivered a biting critique of President Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq and of the administration's overall strategy for combating terrorism, while seeking to reassure Americans that his long-stated opposition to the Iraq war would not compromise his commitment to defending the country from the threat of Islamic extremists.

Just heard my nephew is headed home from Iraq - safe and sound YEAH!!!!

but also heard my friends grandson (20 years old) is coming home without a thumb - guess it could be much worse - but missing a thumb will not make life easy. Since I head the news I have been paying attention to just how much you use your thumb.

Hey THEY ARE COMING HOME!!!!!!!!! HOOOOO RAW!!!!!!!!

That is GRAYT news

Just heard my nephew is headed home from Iraq - safe and sound YEAH!!!!

but also heard my friends grandson (20 years old) is coming home without a thumb - guess it could be much worse - but missing a thumb will not make life easy. Since I head the news I have been paying attention to just how much you use your thumb.

THANK GOD they're safe! You do use your thumb for everythang.

Hey THEY ARE COMING HOME!!!!!!!!! HOOOOO RAW!!!!!!!!

That is GRAYT news

ONE
AT
A
TIME

It can't just be blamed on our leadership - we support our involvement in wars like Iraq every day with our purchases and habits!

We're there because we USE so much oil! Cut consumption by even a small amount and prices and need will drop. Conserve energy, demand and support alternative fuels, and take our dependance out of the picture!

I'm not advocating an uncomfortable "granola" lifestyle, just pointing out that every day you make many small choices that can have major repurcussions, while causing you little, if any, discomfort.

Great Idea I'm totally up for...

NOW
Lets try to get the rest of the world to agree...

Thats the thing
People love ther Oil
SO
Great idea but i don't think others will really like the whole thing...
SADLY!