Obama Argues for a “Messy, Sloppy Status Quo” in Iraq

(CBS)
WASHINGTON -- While addressing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this afternoon, Barack Obama argued that the bar for success in Iraq should be lowered and that the “status quo” may have to be an acceptable resolution to the war.
“The problem I have is that if the definition of success is so high, no traces of al Qaeda and no possibility of reconstitution, a highly effective Iraqi government, a democratic multiethnic, multisectarian functioning democracy, no Iranian influence, at least not the kind that we like, then that portends the possibility of us staying for 20 or 30 years,” Obama said.
“If, on the other hand, our criteria is a messy, sloppy status quo, but there’s not huge outbreaks of violence, there’s still corruption but the country is struggling along, but it’s not a threat to its neighbors and it’s not an al Qaeda base, that seems to me an achievable goal within a measured time frame.”
Obama rarely veered off of his campaign trail points, telling Amb. Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petreaus that a plan for troop withdrawal is essential. Obama also argued for diplomatic talks with Iran, an issue that he has been criticized for by his both of his presidential rivals.
“If Maliki can tolerate it as normal neighbor to neighbor relations with Iran, then we should be talking to them as well,” Obama said, “I do not believe that we can be able stabilize the situation without them.”
Obama remains in Washington this evening, where he will host two closed fund-raisers. He heads back out on the campaign trail tomorrow in Pennsylvania.
The truth is that IRAQ is a quagmire. You can not fix a quagmire while you are still in it. You need to get out of it first and then fix it. The problem w/ the Bush administration is that they think the opposite should be the approach. Obama is right - We set a lower bar of success, get out and then help in the rebuilding efforts. It''s called common sense.
The man continues to be three bottles short of a six pack as well as a day late and a dollar short!
All they have given us so far are horror stories about what would happen if we leave. As Obama pointed out, we''re NEVER going to be able to leave Iraq in a state of bliss. So what are we looking for? What are we killing for? What are we dying for?
Do you freely walk the streets? Do you freely buy and say what you want? Freedom is don''t free..NOTHING is free.
Posted by DoTheMath3
1. We cannot define success as the elimination of Al Qaeda in Iraq
2. We cannot define success as the elimination of Iranian influence in Iraq.
Rather than grandstand on the outrage of the war, he has built his ammunition for a contrast with McCain in an election by going after the core of their BS argument and you will see it come to pass.
Gen. Petraus and the Ambassador probably didn%u2019t fully understand the ramifications of what their sworn answers on military strategy.
Another thing the General and Ambassador went on the record as saying:
3. Chasing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan is more important than chasing Al Qaeda in Iraq.
%u2026and people say Obama isn%u2019t a smart guy%u2026.. wow. He%u2019s brilliant!
And just what is lil'' Hillary''s plans to manage the Iraq situation? Hope it''s not donning an apron and baking our terrorist enemies a batch of brownies. America doesn''t need a weeny for president.
Miles from nowhere... guess I''ll take my time, to get there, yeah.
While our soldiers do tour after tour, killed, maimed, horribly stressed. With no end in sight...
Miles from nowhere... guess I''ll take my time, to get there, yeah.
While our soldiers do tour after tour, killed, maimed, horribly stressed. With no end in sight...
I don''t think Obama sounds like Bush at all. Obama is much smarter and more articulate than Bush could ever hope to be.
I know the truth hurts, especially to one who claims to be able to "SEE" the truth. Open not only your eyes, but your mind and spirit and then things will start to make sense.
Nice little poem. What is Hillary planning on doing? Obama is the next president -thank god. He tells you like it is with a vision that is unmatched. The guy has out grown the senate already -that was easily seen today.
Job: US looking to fill position of President . NO experience NECESSARY Imply within.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by truth-hurts at 06:41 PM : Apr 08, 2008
We know that truth hurts you! Obama is our man and yes he should pull troops out, home! Today. Bush and Co should be impeached and tried for treason (935-lies based war), mismanagement and war crimes (Guantanomo and AbouGhraib). You may collect one of his plaster-casted headbones.
The United States finds itself as friends and foe of both sides. The significant difference between Sunnis and Shiites is the belief in the Islamic Religion of the status of Hussein the great grandson of the profit Muhammad.
The US needs to turn the Iraq over to Iraqis (both Sunni and Shiite) and support the new ruling government (because they have oil like Saudi Arabia) and withdrawal the military occupation.
It%u2019s simple cut the funding to the Bush Private Sector Corporate Entitlement Program.
-
by greenfun
April 9, 2008 3:03 PM PDT
- From Beyond the Chron:
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 22 Commentshmmm
First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. Once he was running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, "There''s not that much difference between my position and George Bush''s position at this stage.
The difference, in my mind, is who''s in a position to execute." The Tribune went on to say that Obama, "now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation - a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration."
Obama''s campaign says he was referring to the ongoing occupation and how best to stabilize the region. But why wouldn''t he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war? Was he trying to signal to conservative voters that he would subjugate his anti-war position if elected to the US Senate and perhaps support a lengthy occupation? Well as it turns out, he''s done just that.