WASHINGTON, D.C., July 15, 2008
Obama: Iraq Distracts From Other Threats
Says Overall U.S. Interests Have Been Hurt By Troop Increase
-
Photo Essay
Barack Obama
A look at the life and meteoric rise of the president-elect.
Obama said his White House rival, Sen. John McCain, "has argued that the gains of the surge mean that I should change my commitment to end the war. But this argument misconstrues what is necessary to succeed in Iraq, and stubbornly ignores the facts of the broader strategic picture that we face."
In a speech delivered in advance of an overseas trip, Obama said fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan would be his top priority. Beyond that, he called for securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states, achieving energy security and rebuilding international alliances.
With his speech, Obama sought to cast the debate over the war in Iraq - and in particular the surge - in a wider context.
"Senator McCain wants to talk of our tactics in Iraq; I want to focus on a new strategy for Iraq and the wider world," he said.
"This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe.
Obama's successful run through the Democratic presidential primaries was fueled in part by his opposition to Bush's plans for an invasion of Iraq in 2003, and his 16-month timetable for a withdrawal has long been a staple of his speeches.
In recent weeks, though, McCain has challenged him to readjust his views to take the results of the so-called surge into account.
"Senator Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan," McCain said in prepared remarks.
"And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: First you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy."
Obama answered bluntly.
"In the 18 months since the surge began, the strain on our military has increased, our troops and their families have borne an enormous burden, and American taxpayers have spent another $200 billion in Iraq," he said.
He added that in Afghanistan, "June was our highest casualty month of the war. The Taliban has been on the offensive, even launching a brazen attack on one of our bases. Al Qaeda has a growing sanctuary in Pakistan."
The speech billed as a major address by the campaign offered no new policy, but a high-profile explanation of his opposition to the war and his pledge to complete a U.S. troop pullout within 16 months of becoming president. It also gave him a forum for criticizing President Bush and McCain.
"I will end this war as president," he said, speaking from a podium that said "Judgment to Lead." Obama addressed the crowd with a line of American flags behind him.
Obama delayed his appearance for half an hour for a presidential news conference that the White House announced Tuesday morning during the same time that Obama was scheduled to be speaking just three blocks away.
President Bush was asked what advice he might give Obama as he prepared to visit Iraq. The president said he would ask Obama to listen carefully to Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker.
"It's a temptation to let the politics at home get in the way, you know, with the considered judgment of the commanders," Mr. Bush said. He defended his policy and maintained that the effort in Iraq was succeeding and acknowledged that the war in Afghanistan remained "a tough fight."
Meanwhile, the New York Daily News reported that the Obama campaign altered its Web site to remove a statement that Mr. Bush's surge of troops in Iraq "is not working." Over the weekend, the site was changed to describe an "improved security situation" at the cost of U.S. lives.
Campaign aide Wendy Morigi told the newspaper that Obama is "not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events."
© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 15
- next
See all 707 CommentsThe presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a "problem" that had barely reduced violence.
"The surge is not working," Obama''s old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.
The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.
Obama''s campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an "improved security situation" paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.
It praises G.I.s'' "hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice."
We should win one war at a time starting with the one involving those who actually attacked us.
Whether or not you think the Iraqi surge is working depends upon your prespective of the war we''re actually in.
i''m under the illusion that the war on terror is being conducted against us by the forces who attacked us on September 11 and they are cooling their heels in Pakastan while their minions retake the territory our soldiers previously liberated in Afghanistan.
I''m sick of hearing about the horror that will take place if we leave Iraq from people who have no concern about the horror that will take place in Afghanistan if the Taliban retakes the country.
We have a choice in Afghanistan regarding the message we want to send to those who would attack the U.S. again.
Either we can send the message that you can evade paying for attacking us if you find a safe haven in a soverign nation with a friendly government, or we can send the message that if you attack America we will go wherever we have to in order to extract justice.
Our goal should not be to occupy the middle east or protect oil, or make the middle east safe for democracy.
It should be to directly confront those who continue to plan attacks against us and to remove their ability to do so as much as we can.
In doing so, we don''t have to explain ourselves to Musharif or the U.N. or anyone else. Afghanistan relates directly to our natonal security. Iraq never has.
The unraveling of Afghanistan is just another glaring example of the criminal incompetence of Bush and his fellow Republicans. We had the Taliban and Al Qaeda on the run in Afghanistan until Bushco took our resources out and committed them in Iraq, a country that posed no threat to us whatsoever.
The cost so far? Three trillion dollars, 4,000 plus American lives, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives, alienation and a loss of credibility with our allies, record prices on everything, a recked economy, a stronger Al Qaeda and Taliban, and we''re losing the so-called "war on terror".
It''s hard to imagine any group of "leaders" *** up more than this bunch of right wing nuts.
Very well put. If these neocon dolts really cared about our troops and our security they wold advocate going after those who would and could actually do us harm. Instead they advocate digging in their stubborn heals in Iraq fighting an insurgency that will never end while allowing the real terrorists to recapture Afghanistan and to reconstitute their training camps. Unfortunately they are so caught up in the "surrender" talk that they can''t see the real picture.
Thanks for the intelligent post, it''s so rarely seen around here.
ccfsdca
He''s simply acknowledging the reality on the ground. Would you rather he take the neocon approach and deny reality at every opportunity?
Posted by tcart2 at 11:05 AM : Jul 15, 2008"
Obama has never changed his position on the war in Iraq. He has been against it and has never veered from that. He has stated that his first actio nas President wouldbe to end the war and he has never veered from that.
You neocon dolts quibble like children about details and call that flip flopping. Real flip-flopping is being against a tax cut for the rich and then changing your mind and being for it. Real flip-flopping is stating that off-shore drilling is a huge mistake and then 3 weeks later changing your mind and stating that we must pursue it. Real flip-flopping is McCain doing and saying anything to become President and you and your small minded kind are taking the idiot bait, hook line and sinker.
I agree with taddles, your post went to the heart of the matter. Our resources need to be directed towards our enemies, not towards an occupation of a soverign nation. Well put!
no matter how small minded or naive.
............ Obama hasn''t been there yet so what would he know about the situation on the ground!! ... he already has said that he already knows more than the generals and commanders on the ground ... so why even go????????????????????????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by aldon61
I am confused, isn''t Afgan an soverign nation as well? Al-Queda maybe reside there but the state of Afgan is still soverign, right?
Posted by ccfsdca at 11:11 AM : Jul 15, 2008"
Someone who can actually tell the truth and say what needs to be said, namely that the war in Iraq was and is a lie and the real terrorists are still in Afghanistan and Pakistan and YOUR president has failed to get them and YOUR candidate will fail to go after them because both of them are too busy trying not to look like "cut-n-runners" to man-up to the failure in Iraq and go after the murders of 911.
no matter how small minded or naive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by tcart2 at 11:21 AM : Jul 15, 2008
Tell you what, let''s play the "flip-flop" game, OK?
You start by naming an Obama flip-flop, then I''ll post a McCain flip-flop, let''s see who wins.
couldnt even name one thing while on live tv...
I am confused, isn''''t Afgan an soverign nation as well? Al-Queda maybe reside there but the state of Afgan is still soverign, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by peanutcrisp at 11:23 AM : Jul 15, 2008
The taliban had taken over the sovereign nation of Afghanistan; at the time of our invasion, only Pakistan had recognized their government as ligitimate. No, I wouldn''t call that a "soverign" nation.
You don''t want to play "flip-flop" do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Ariel133
Dude, are you just plan dumb or unable to read? His Iraq policy is always the same, to pull our troops out. His Afgan policy didn''t change either that we must go after Al-Queda! So were is the flip-flop??
+
Will you play "flip-flop" with me?
Posted by tcart2 at 11:21 AM : Jul 15, 2008"
Naivetis is trying to equate minor changes in tactics with policy changes. Please show me anywhere that Obama has changed his stance on the war in Iraq. Where has he said that he would not make getting out of Iraq his first priority? You quibble over whether he said 18 months or 16 as if it mattered, when he has consistently stated that his goal is to end the war as soon as is possible and McCain has stated that he has no intention of ending the war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by ccfsdca
Isn''t that the qualification for "War Crime"?
Posted by Ariel133 at 11:28 AM : Jul 15, 2008"
Really...mind linking to anything demonstrating that or are you content making stupid comments with nothing to back them up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by ccfsdca at 11:31 AM : Jul 15, 2008
+
I don''t want to play around with the definition of Soverign. When the world community doesn''t recognize a faction that overthrows a soverign government, then I wouldn''t either. The taliban were not the rightful rulers of Afghanistan, and they were giving aid to Osama Bin Laden, a reknown worldwide terroist. The invasion was the right thing to do, and we did not go in alone; we had a coalition with us, and still do in AFGHANISTAN.
The people in the media are so afraid to challenge this guy on ANYTHING hs says.
The GOP could EASILY throw this right back in his arrogant face.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by lilvinnyb at 11:39 AM : Jul 15, 2008
Why havn''t they done it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by aldon61
It WASN''t approved by UN! We, USA helped establish UN in hope to promote world peace. Why circuvent the system when it''s not convienent? We gave aid to Bin Ladn and the Taliban to fight the soviet maybe 30 years ago. We even trained them in terrorist style gurilla fighting. Now we call them terriorists! Who is the instigator who started it all??
We win the prize as the stupidest nation in the world. We are well on our way to Mission Accomplished II. Obama is turning out to be the hack that Hillary tried to warn the DEms about, but the right wing media drove her out and road Obama in on a rail. Be happy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by peanutcrisp at 11:41 AM : Jul 15, 2008
There isn''t a single thing in your post that isn''t correct. I laud you for keeping to the facts, unlike many others that post here. What we have here is a disagreement; I''m glad we went into Afghanistan; Bin Laden and the taliban were thumbing their noses at us. The U.N. was not going to do a dam thing, and I felt we had to do something. Iraq, on the other hand was and still is an illegal and immoral war. Our resources there should be shifted to Afghanistan, or other parts of the world (like home). On this one peanutcrisp, we just have to agree to disagree, OK?
How you been MCVet?
----------------------------------
----------------------------------------
------
Posted by peanutcrisp at 11:41 AM : Jul 15, 2008
Excellent point but keep in mind they DID steel those planes and they DID fly them into the towers. Hey it''s one thing to train people to resist occupation... that does NOT justify them attacking this nation. People or Organizations should NOT be allowed to attack people just because they don''t agree with you.
Militarily, it was not wise to open a war on two fronts.
THIS IS PAINFUL TO WATCH.
;)
THIS IS PAINFUL TO WATCH.
;)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by johnny1285
In what way johnny? what did you hear that you disagree with or that indicates he "knows absolutely nothing" about foreign policy? did he confuse who our friends and enemies are like McCain?
It is about time McCain said this. It is frightening that a possible future president would make war strategy and speech after speech, locking himself into positions, without talking to the commanders on the ground or ever witnessing policy %u2018in action%u201D in country.
Obama''s last trip to Iraq = 2.5 years ago, last trip to Afganistan = never. Never visited, never served in the armed forces, country, never on a major military comittee, ..wants to be commander in chief.
Clearly, this is not a man interested in winning anything but votes..
The Pakis are allowing the Taliban to train and camp in their country. They attack Americans in Afgagastan from Pakiland. Up to now, we have not been pursuing them across the border of bombing their training camps.
A REAL president would tell the Pakis that this is coming to a halt! We will now track the taliban across the border and annialate them. And if you let them hide behind women and children and in mosks, well, that''s too bad.
Clearly, this is not a man interested in winning anything but votes..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by bobmarisol
In case you haven''t read the constitution lately or looked at the design of our government, the President is not supposed to be a military person, and in fact, that is discouraged to the point that they give up any military status if a military person becomes President. They are to be "civilian" in order to provide a check and balance on the military. Why do you think our founding fathers wanted a civilian to have authority over the military?
Clearly, this is not a man interested in winning anything but votes..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by bobmarisol
p.s. Obama chaired the armed services committee, didn''t he?
You little bed wetting libs are so full of shiit! As if you would know. The only things you KNOW are what you read off Rosie O''Lardass'' website.
So just shut the f**k up about things you know nothing about.
PS - McCain may have graduated last in his class from the Naval Academy, but at least he graduated.....something you''d never be able to do.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 15
- next
See all 707 Comments