Obama: Trust me to end the war

Obama: Trust me to end the war

news.yahoo.com

Barack Obama suggested Wednesday that Hillary Rodham Clinton could not be trusted to end the Iraq war because she only started opposing it when she began her bid for president.

In a speech not far from North Carolina's Fort Bragg military base, the Democratic presidential hopeful told military families and local officials that the war has emboldened al-Qaida, the Taliban, Iran and North Korea.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.reuters.com

While I may not agree with some of his statements, he seems to be fairly straightforward with his Iraq war voting. I'd much rather see him as President than the Clinton family again.

I am not interested in seeing Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush Jr-Bush Jr-and then Clinton-Clinton?

That's what one would call a duopoly. Two families in power for 24-28 years. Pretty sickening to me.

"Ask yourself," Obama told the crowd, "Who do you trust to end a war: someone who opposed the war from the beginning, or someone who started opposing it when they started preparing a run for president?"

Well Barack, I think you already know how I feel.

Obama used the five-year anniversary of the Iraq invasion to again cast himself as the only true anti-war candidate, one who openly opposed the invasion as a state lawmaker. He renewed criticism of Clinton for voting to authorize the use of force against Iraq.

He wasn't the only "anti-war" candidate. Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich had been anti-war the entire time the war was going on. You may not have voted to go to war, I'll give you that much.

And of course the Clintons have to put their own spin on the story:

Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer responded: "The reality is that Senator Obama took practically no action to end the war until he started his White House run while Senator Clinton has been a consistent critic of Iraq for many years."

That's an outright lie. Hillary voted to go to war and believes in the freaking war on terror, which is a load of crap.

"What we need in our next commander in chief is not a stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality or empty rhetoric about 3 a.m. phone calls," he said. "What we need is a pragmatic strategy that focuses on fighting our real enemies, rebuilding alliances and renewing our engagement with the world's people."

Amen.

I'm not a huge fan of either candidate, but I will do whatever I can to keep the Clintons out of the Oval Office (I know you have some fond memories Bill, but no more from the oral office; Monica is retired from under the table service).




news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by biggie smalls


Does anyone trust this man to end the war? I trust him more than Hillary, but that isn't saying a whole lot.

I'd prefer to see a candidate like Paul or Kucinich win, but that likelihood has gone out the window soon after the media stopped letting either in any serious debates.

Originally posted by biggie smalls
he seems to be fairly straightforward with his Iraq war voting.

He wasn't even in the senate to be able to vote for or against the war.

If you mean that he's been straightforward about his 'stand' on the war... Well .. not really.

howlinglatina.blogspot.com...

www.commentarymagazine.com...

He's claiming to have been against it all the time. But the fact is that he has done kerry-style flip flop flip flops. Obamas stand blows in the wind and bends to whatever the current political climate is.

At one point he said that his stand on the war and that of George Bush were virtually the same.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
He's claiming to have been against it all the time. But the fact is that he has done kerry-style flip flop flip flops. Obamas stand blows in the wind and bends to whatever the current political climate is.

That flip-flopping sounds more like Hillary Clinton, but I see where you're coming from.

I used to believe what Bush said, and heck I would have voted for him in 2004 but I was hiking in the desert at the time.

Now that I've seen through his bull# and lies, I don't like the man one bit. I never really trusted Cheney though. He always seemed evil.

The whole changing one's opinion to suit a political agenda is pretty much what Hillary Clinton does all the time.

Its sad when anyone is compared to Kerry though. That's pretty insulting .

If its at all possible, I think Kerry would have been a worse President than Bush.

Even thou I didn't support the invasion I was happy to see the statue of Saddam fall so that alone isnt enough to pass judgement on a person stance on the war. If my memory serves me correctly support for the war temporary shot up after the fall of Saddam and before nothing was done to combat the insurgency.

Onto the matter at hand I wouldn't trust Obama to end the war in Iraq. Obama supports both a withdrawl from Iraq and going after Al-Qaeda . Obama may think that the forces currently deployed in Iraq would be better off deployed in Afghanistan and the Pakistani border . He has yet to say this and it may not reflect his thinking.


IMO none of the candidates would end the war in Iraq. Rather we would see a draw down in the number of US troops in Iraq because the surge isnt sustainable without pulling troops out of say South Korea.

Obama is not going to just end the war. All the end the war stuff that is coming out of his mouth is just political " get me elected hot air".

His own adviser that called Clinton a monster said that Obama was just using rhetoric and that he couldn't make any move until he had all of the intel on the war.

Roper

Originally posted by xpert11
IMO none of the candidates would end the war in Iraq. Rather we would see a draw down in the number of US troops in Iraq because the surge isnt sustainable without pulling troops out of say South Korea.

In the debates both Clinton and Obama talked about a gradual withdrawal from Iraq, taking into account the instability of the country we would be leaving. I really don't see much difference between them.

Every day Clinton says something critical about Obama and Obama says something about Clinton. That's politics. You can't take every tit for tat as a major confrontation or crisis.

I really don't care if Clinton initially supported the war in Iraq--at that time Congress was going on the assumption that they had WMD. I supported the war at first myself, then changed my mind when it looked like the U.S. was getting impossibly bogged down in a civil war.

I don't think when a candidate began opposing the war is as important as the fact that they don't support it now.