 |
|
|
|
|
|
login | create account
The Dawg Pub
-- TheDawgFather  |
|
Subject: Here's what I don't get about Obama...
|
|
Posted by: Dawg151 on Wed Jul 23 2008 11:09:18 PM
|
Message:
Couric: All that may be true. But do you not give the surge any
credit for reducing violence in Iraq?
Obama: No, no ... of course I have. There is no doubt that the
extraordinary work of our U.S. forces has contributed to a lessening
of the violence, just as making sure that the Sadr militia stood
down or the fact that the Sunni tribes decided to flip and work with
us instead of with al-Qaeda - something that we hadn't anticipated
happening.
All those things have contributed to a reduction in violence. So
this, in no way, detracts from the great efforts of our young men
and women in uniform. In fact, that's one of the most striking
things about visiting Iraq is to see how dedicated they are, what a
great job they do - all those things ... are critically important.
What I'm saying is it does not solve the broader strategic question
that we have been dealing with over the last five, six, seven years.
And that is how do we take the limited resources we have, both
militarily and financially, and apply them in such a way that we are
making America as safe as possible? And I believe that my approach
is the right one.
Couric: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of
30,000 additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?
Obama: Katie, as ... you've asked me three different times, and I
have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped
to reduce violence. There's no doubt.
Couric: But yet you're saying ... given what you know now, you still
wouldn't support it ... so I'm just trying to understand this.
Obama: Because ... it's pretty straightforward. By us putting $10
billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that's money that
could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have
gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore
up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money
could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so
that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund
the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that
would be taken into consideration in my decision-- to deal with a
specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.
Couric: And I really don't mean to belabor this, Senator, because
I'm really, I'm trying ... to figure out your position. Do you think
the level of security in Iraq ...
Obama: Yes.
Couric ... would exist today without the surge?
Obama: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied
my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive
at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I
can say is that there's no doubt that our U.S. troops have
contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that, not
just today, not just yesterday, but I've said that previously. What
that doesn't change is that we've got to have a different strategic
approach if we're going to make America as safe as possible.
1. He says on one hand that it's ovbious things were going to get
better if we put more troops in (not in this interview, but he's
said that in the past), but at the same time, he claims that we
could not "anticipate" things calming down in Iraq? Senator, which
is it? Was it obvious that more troops would equal a reduction in
violence or is that something we could never anticipate?
2. Who wouldn't have anticipated what would have happened had we
done what Obama wanted to do back before the surge and brought
troops home before October 7, 2007? I can tell you exactly what
would have happened and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know
what would have happened: the place would have boiled over and
there would have been a power vacuum in Iraq with no stabilizing
force in the country to prevent it. That's what would have happened.
3. Obama 2008: "I have no idea what would have happened had we
applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to
arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals.
What I can say is that there's no doubt that our U.S. troops have
contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that, not
just today, not just yesterday, but I've said that previously."
Obama 2007: "We cannot impose a military solution on what has
effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that
reality, uh, we can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops;
30,000 more troops. Uh, I don't know any, uh, expert on the region
or any military officer that I've spoken to, uh, privately that
believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the
situation on the ground."
Really? Really, Senator? Those are two opposing statements. One
says that more troops on the ground has succeeded while the other
says more troops on the ground can't succeed.
4. One more...
Obama in May of 2008: "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela – these countries are
tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat
to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us...you know,
Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military.
If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't
stand a chance."
Obama in July 2008: "We've got a significant threat in Iran."
I'm sorry. I don't mean to be a partisan hack and I have to admit
that I'm not exactly thrilled about a McCain presidency, but
Obama...he takes the cake. The guy doesn't have a clue about
foreign policy. The economy is an important issue and I have my
reservations about what McCain would do with it, but to me, the
president of the United States must...MUST...have some idea when it
comes to foreign policy. The economy can be helped and aided by
cabinet members and Congress...but foreign policy? That's an area
governed in large part by the president. He's the one that sets the
agenda...and especiallly in these time, now is not the time to have
someone in the office that can't see where we've been, what we've
done and how we get out of it.
|
 Here's what I don't get about Obama... -- Dawg151 Wed Jul 23 2008 11:09:18 PM |
You must log in before you can post a message.
|
