Obama Meets With Iraqi Leaders
Iraqi Spokesman Says Country Hopes U.S. Combat Troops Will Withdraw In 2010
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Obama Arrives In Iraq
Sen. Barack Obama has arrived in Iraq where he will meet with the top U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus. He spoke exclusively with Lara Logan in Kuwait about his goals for the foreign policy tour.
-
Video
McCain: Obama Misjudges Iraq
Sen. John McCain criticized Sen. Barack Obama's foreign policy position at the onset of his landmark tour of Iraq, saying he hoped the trip would address his "gross misjudgment." Harry Smith reports.
-
Video
Exclusive: Obama In Afghanistan
Presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama speaks with CBS News chief foreign affairs correspondent Lara Logan about his visit to the Middle East and the War on Terror in Afghanistan.
-
-
Photo
In this photo released by the U.S. army, U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama, right, is greeted by top U.S. military commander in Iraq, David Petraeus, center, upon his arrival to Baghdad, Iraq, Monday, July 21, 2008. (AP)
-
Photo
In this photo released by the Iraqi Government, U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama, left, shakes hands with the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad, Iraq, Monday, July 21, 2008. (AP)
-
Photo
This picture released by the U.S. Combined Security Transition Command Afghanistan shows Sen. Barack Obama, left, greeting Sgt. Anthony R. Lewis of Combined Security Transition Command in Afghanistan during a visit to Camp Eggers in Kabul, Afghanistan, July 20, 2008. (AP Photo/HO)
-
Photo
Sen. Barack Obama in Afghanistan talks to Lara Logan on "Face The Nation." (CBS)
-
Photo
Barack Obama, left, talks with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, right, in Baghdad, Iraq, Monday, July 21, 2008. Man at center is an unidentified aide. (AP)
-
-
Photo Essay
Obama in the Mideast
Democratic presidential hopeful holds talks in Iraq, Afghanistan
-
Interactive
Iraq: 5 Years At War
Five years after the U.S.-led invasion, the war wears on.
The statement by Iraq's government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, followed talks between Obama and Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki - who has struggled for days to clarify Iraq's position on a possible timetable for a U.S. troop pullout.
Al-Dabbagh said the government did not endorse a fixed date, but hoped American combat units could be out of Iraq sometime in 2010. That timeframe falls within the 16-month withdrawal plan proposed by Obama, who arrived in Iraq earlier in the day as part of a congressional fact-finding team.
"We are hoping that in 2010 that combat troops will withdraw from Iraq," al-Dabbagh told reporters, noting that any withdrawal plan was subject to change if the level of violence kicks up again.
As he departed from talks with al-Maliki and President Jalal Talabani in Baghdad's heavily protected Green Zone, Obama said, "We had a very constructive discussion." Obama also plans meetings with U.S. military commanders who will outline recent progress in the war he has opposed from the start.
This was the third stop on a foreign tour designed to gather information while burnishing the Democratic contender's foreign policy credentials. National security issues are the one issue area in which Obama trails Republican John McCain in the polls.
Obama has called for withdrawing U.S. troops at the rate of one or two brigades a month, ending combat operations within 16 months of becoming president. He favors leaving behind a residual force to protect U.S. personnel, train Iraqi security forces and counter attacks by al Qaeda.
The Illinois senator, challenged at every turn on the Iraq issue by Republicans, including McCain, arrived in the country amid the controversy over the comments by al-Maliki to a German magazine that were supportive of Obama's 16-month timetable.
The Iraqi leader's aides have said his remarks were misunderstood and that he was not taking sides in the U.S. election. Earlier this month, however, al-Maliki said negotiations between his government and the United States on an agreement spelling out a continued role for U.S. forces in Iraq must include some kind of timetable for withdrawing troops from his country.
Last week, the White House said President Bush and al-Maliki had agreed to set a "general time horizon" for bringing home more U.S. troops, a dramatic shift from what had been the administration's steadfast refusal to talk about any kind of deadline.
At the White House on Monday, Press Secretary Dana Perino said she had not heard the latest statement from al-Dabbagh. But responding to the continuing debate over withdrawal, Perino said the U.S. shares the goal of bringing U.S. troops home based on security success.
"The key issue is that they understand it will not be arbitrary; it will not be a date that you just pluck out of thin air; it will not be something that Americans say, `We're going to do we're going to leave at this date,' which is what some have suggested," she said.
Obama, along with Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., arrived in the country early Monday. Their first stop was Basra, according to a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to give details of the trip.
Basra is the center for about 4,000 British troops involved mostly in training Iraqi forces. An Iraqi-led offensive begun in March reclaimed control of most of the city from Shiite militias believed linked to Iran.
The meetings with Iraqi officials came after Obama began his first on-the-ground inspection of Iraq since launching his bid for the White House.
It marked the second major leg of a war zone tour that opened in Afghanistan. The contrasts in tone and message were distinct.
Obama sees the battle against the resurgent Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan as America's most crucial fight and supports expanding troop strength there to counter a sharp rise in attacks.
After spending time over the weekend meeting officials in Afghanistan, Obama told CBS News chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan in an exclusive interview that the time had come to shift America's military focus - and thousands of troops - from Iraq to Afghanistan. (Watch interview on Face The Nation.)
There's starting to be a growing consensus that it's time for us to withdraw some of our combat troops out of Iraq, deploy them here in Afghanistan.
Sen. Barack Obama"When he visited two and a half years ago, Iraq was on the brink of collapse militarily and politically," reports Doyle. "Now, in Baghdad in the last year the levels of violence have decreased in almost all categories by more than 90 percent, and there is a nascent mood of optimism running through the neighborhoods."
But Doyle tempers the positive assessment with a reminder of Iraq's continuing woes: "Those same areas are only receiving about eight hours of electricity a day, sewage problems persist, and unemployment can run as high as 60 percent."
Obama's first tour was treated as a footnote, while the country was caught in a growing Sunni insurgency and was moving toward a flood of sectarian violence. But the bloodshed has declined significantly since Mr. Bush sent thousands more troops last year to help quell the rising violence.
Doyle reports Obama and his fellow senators will also encounter Iraqi leaders who are increasingly "unafraid to push back against American influence." Some U.S. Embassy staff who regularly deal with the national government have told CBS News privately that the Iraqis have even become "belligerent."
"The Iraqi government seems to be finding its stride a bit," says Doyle.
One leading parliamentarian was critical of the flying visits to his country often made by American lawmakers. Mahmoud Othman, who has seen hundreds of senators and congressmen come and go, told Doyle recently the visitors see all the wrong people.
"They come only to the Green Zone, the American Embassy, they see a few generals. I don't think this is a useful trip," said Othman, a prominent member of the Iraqi parliament's Kurdish bloc. "They should go to Basra, Mosul; they are safe now. They should talk to Iraqi lawyers, engineers, doctors, all sorts of people. Twenty hours on a plane, twenty hours going back - 10, 12 hours here - I don't think it's worth it."

Speaking Monday morning to CBS Early Show co-anchor Harry Smith, McCain said he hoped Obama would learn the error of his ways during his visit to Iraq. (Watch video of the McCain interview)
"Sen. Obama was wrong. He railed against it (the war), he voted against the surge," McCain said. "It is my hope that he will see for himself that he made a gross misjudgment and he will correct that."
"If Sen. Obama would have had his way, they (U.S. troops) would have been out last March, before the surge, and we would have failed," the Republican candidate told Smith.
McCain supports the war, and has been critical of some aspects of its handling. But he was a vocal supporter of the decision to send in more troops.
McCain's foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, said Obama "is stubbornly adhering to an unconditional withdrawal that places politics above the advice of our military commanders, the success of our troops, and the security of the American people."
U.S. commanders have begun withdrawing some of those additional troops and Obama argues they should be sent to Afghanistan, which he says is the "central front" in the fight against terrorism, to reinforce efforts there against a resurgent Taliban and to control spiraling violence.
"There's starting to be a growing consensus that it's time for us to withdraw some of our combat troops out of Iraq, deploy them here in Afghanistan, and I think we have to seize that opportunity. Now is the time for us to do it," Obama told Logan after a two-hour meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. (Read the transcript of the exclusive interview.)
"I think it's important for us to begin planning for those brigades now. If we wait until the next administration, it could be a year before we get those additional troops on the ground here in Afghanistan, and I think that would be a mistake," Obama said in the interview. "I think the situation is getting urgent enough that we have got to start doing something now."
Obama has made Afghanistan a centerpiece of his proposed strategy for dealing with terrorism threats to the United States. He has said the war in Afghanistan, where Taliban- and al Qaeda-linked militants are resurgent, deserves more troops and attention than the conflict in Iraq.
Earlier Sunday, Obama met and praised U.S. troops as he ate breakfast at a heavily fortified base in Kabul.
"To see young people like this who are doing such excellent work, with so much dedication ... it makes you feel good about the country," Obama said in video footage filmed by the military and obtained by The Associated Press.
McCain also supports sending troop reinforcements to Afghanistan.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.




- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 21
- next
See all 1043 CommentsRe: "Sens. Obama, Hagel And Reed Arrive In Iraq"
3 fascist sympathizers with no ideas, no balls, no integrity, and no respect for our Constitution.
May they soon join George before a war crimes tribunal.
fenner,
Nobody here believes your Zionist nonsense, and nobody cares.
Try the Jeruselem Post dot com.
Posted by fenner
-------------------------
I look forward to what McAddled has to say about this shocking revelation.
Judge for yourselves if we would have had a better chance of getting Bin Laden with Obama as President in 2002:
Here is what Obama said in 2002 before the war about Iraq:
" After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration''s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don''t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.
...
You want a fight, President Bush? Let''s finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. "
The one who was right in 2002 should be President in 2008.
God bless you, and God Bless the United States of America!
Judge for yourselves if we would have had a better chance of getting Bin Laden with Obama as President in 2002:
Here is what Obama said in 2002 before the war about Iraq:
" After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration''s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don''t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.
...
You want a fight, President Bush? Let''s finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. "
The one who was right in 2002 should be President in 2008.
God bless you, and God Bless the United States of America!
It''ll be interesting to see if he DOESN''T get a bump.
It''''ll be interesting to see if he DOESN''''T get a bump.
Posted by SamTheTVCat
-----------------
The only "bump" that counts is the one in November, the rest is just chaff..
Posted by grahampoor
Well if the goal were to hunt down Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, then what''s the deal with the nation-building in Afghanistan?
And even if we just focus on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden who are now on the border region, and troops start moving to the border region, then won''t the whole caravan just pick up and cross the border into Pakistan. Where does everybody stand on initiating strikes on a country without their permission when that country has nukes?!?
How long, and at what cost? It may be one of those paradoxes like how everybody just assumed taking out Saddam clearly meant we were going to be safer, but 3 years later the NIE showed the invasion had inflamed the passions of the entire region such that recruitment was skyrocketing and we were LESS safe than if we had just left paper-tiger Saddam in place.
Bin Laden''s holed up in a cave somewhere in no-man''s land. Why don''t we just keep a base there for preventative measure and just pack up the whole futile nation-building adventure and bring the troops home?
Posted by hadenough43
Yeah, that''s true - you''re right . . .
I don''t know . . . it just seems like the traditional ''left'' position seems to have disappeared in this election and now we''ve got rightie (McCain) and rightie-wannabe (Barack). Barack''s so far right, I''m probably going to vote GOP to satisfy my leftist tendencies . . .
Posted by SamTheTVCat
---------------------
I don''t know if Osama is dead or alive, and I really don''t care.
However, I strongly suspect that if we leave a vacuum in Afghanistan - the taliban will move right back in, set up shop, and go right back into the business of supporting terrorism. With the assistance of certain "factions" in Pakistan.
Do we need to take on the taliban to avoid the terrorists having sanctuary, or is it just part of the grander scheme to try and democratize the middle-east? If we keep a base and write off the nation-building, don''t we achieve that same goal?
www.jihadwatch.org
"Unfortunately, Der Spiegel was not accurate," Mr. Dabbagh said Sunday by telephone. "I have the recording of the voice of Mr. Maliki. We even listened to the translation."
But the interpreter for the interview works for Mr. Maliki%u2019s office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Mr. Maliki%u2019s interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Mr. Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Mr. Obama%u2019s position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence.
The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki%u2019s comments by The Times: "Obama%u2019s remarks that %u2014 if he takes office %u2014 in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq."
He continued: "Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq."
Do we need to take on the taliban to avoid the terrorists having sanctuary, or is it just part of the grander scheme to try and democratize the middle-east? If we keep a base and write off the nation-building, don''''t we achieve that same goal?
Posted by SamTheTVCat
------------------
Well, I could be wrong, but I''m not sure what the difference is between supporting terrorism and giving sanctuary to terrorists.
Posted by Smirk5
Just wait until he finds out Barack''s lying to everybody about his 16 month timeline to get votes! Just another politician . . .
When Congress passes the $several-hundred-billion budget for the slower drawdown in Iraq and the quicker buildup of Iran, I think anybody who''s not calling Barack out on his campaign pledges waives the right to complain that the economics in the tank. jmo
Posted by hadenough43
Please elaborate . . .
He continued: %u201CWho wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.%u201D
He continued: %u201CWHO wants to EXIT in a QUICKER WAY has a BETTER ASSESSMENT of the situation in Iraq.%u201D
Posted by CiitzenUSA
That sounds like you''re advocating genocide - based on your assumption of how they interpret their faith, you''re saying they must die (?) Isn''t that for God to decide?
Posted by hadenough43
Please elaborate . . .
Posted by SamTheTVCat
If we leave a vacuum in Afghanistan, the Taliban move back in, as I suspect they will with support from Pakistani allies, set up shop, and go back into the business of supporting terrorism by providing them with sanctuary and real estate to train and equip terrorsists from all over the Muslim world, after they have been cycled through those Pakistani Madrassas. Then it seems to me that we''re right back where we were before 9/11. I''m not sure that''s where we want to be. Especially, unlike Iraq, the Afghans want us there.
Posted by SamTheTVCat
-------------------
It seems to me that "bases" alone won''t cut it unless those "bases" are tasked with the mission of fighting and killing taliban. If the taliban return to power in afghanistan, the "bases" won''t last long.
Re: "Especially, unlike Iraq, the Afghans want us there."
Posted by hadenough43
Maybe the puppets like former Unocal executive, and Mayor of Kabul, Hamid Karzia, do, along with the warlords and druglords that we have empowered there, but there is no indication, at all, that the people of Afghanistan welcome the continued U.S. invasion, destruction, and attempted plunder of their country.
It seems far more certain that the people of Afghanistan, and pretty much everywhere else, have had about as much U.S. "liberation" as they can withstand.
If we remain in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, it will seal our demise as a nation, and it will have been well deserved.
Posted by hadenough43
Maybe the puppets like former Unocal executive, and Mayor of Kabul, Hamid Karzia, do, along with the warlords and druglords that we have empowered there, but there is no indication, at all, that the people of Afghanistan welcome the continued U.S. invasion, destruction, and attempted plunder of their country.
It seems far more certain that the people of Afghanistan, and pretty much everywhere else, have had about as much U.S. "liberation" as they can withstand.
If we remain in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, it will seal our demise as a nation, and it will have been well deserved.
Posted by FeelFree4U
--------------------
I ain''t gonna argue that Karzai ain''t a druglord. But it seems to me that if the druglords and warlords are eventually given a choice between the poppy fields or the benefits of taliban rule, they may come around... but I could be wrong...
Posted by hadenough43
We''re going in circles - Okay I guess you''re saying that you''re including in the group ''terrorists'' not just the actual terrorists but also the entire group who let them set up shop. The problem I have with that is that aren''t there like 10 to 40 million people who fall under that category? You''re basically expressing the overarching rationale that those who advocated the invasion of Iraq were expressing, and you''re also touching on the one expressed by CiitzenUSA, is that right?
That still ignores the money factor - also, are you for or against staying longer in Iraq?
Posted by hadenough43
We''''re going in circles - Okay I guess you''''re saying that you''''re including in the group ''''terrorists'''' not just the actual terrorists but also the entire group who let them set up shop. The problem I have with that is that aren''''t there like 10 to 40 million people who fall under that category? You''''re basically expressing the overarching rationale that those who advocated the invasion of Iraq were expressing, and you''''re also touching on the one expressed by CiitzenUSA, is that right?
That still ignores the money factor - also, are you for or against staying longer in Iraq?
Posted by SamTheTVCat
------------------
To the best of my knowledge, there were no Al-Quaida training bases in Iraq - There weren''t even any terrorist there until the Idiot-Son invaded.
I''m agains''t staying in Iraq even one more day. Those sunnis and shias have been at each others throats for 2000 or so years (Persian/Arab hatred) - I say let ''em have at it. Let the jihadists go after each other, not us.
What I''m trying to say is - lets focus on those who attacked us and those who support them with training and equipment and money. Which does not include Iraq or Iran! But does include the taliban!
Posted by KenHussein
------------------------
Besides that, they have way, way too much to lose - and they know it.
Posted by hadenough43
Well, a couple of other wrinkles to consider are the politics on the ground.
From USAToday (Karzai acknowledges meeting with Taliban): "Afghan Taliban are always welcome, they belong to this country ... they are the sons of this soil,"
From Wikipedia (Afghanistan): "Afghanistan is currently led by President Hamid Karzai, who was elected in October 2004. The current parliament was elected in 2005. Among the elected officials were former mujahadeen, Taliban members, communists, reformists, and Islamic fundamentalists."
* * * * *
A lot of people thought the Sunnis were the bad guys but Iraqis seem to look out for their own first and foremost. How do we set up a new regime and then try to go over their head and kill their countrymen against their wishes without discrediting the government?
Posted by hadenough43
Also from Wikipedia: "Politics in Afghanistan has historically consisted of power struggles, bloody coups and unstable transfers of power. With the exception of a military junta, the country has been governed by nearly every system of government over the past century, including a monarchy, republic, theocracy and communist state."
* * * * *
I mean like if you''re just supporting the escalation in Afghanistan because you want to win the election, just say so. But how exactly Afghanistan is any less of a quagmire than Iraq I don''t see. Like I said before, everybody looks back at Saddam now as just being a paper tiger. Four years from now when our dollar has turned into the peso, I don''t want to be hearing people say that Bin Laden was just a guy in a cave.
---------
Afganistan is where we should have been this whole time with every available troop on the ground and in the sky. Now we are behind the 8 ball--so to speak.
Posted by whiskyrocker
Yeah, if only . . . what we might have been able to accomplish the last 5 years! :(
I''m just so worried everybody''s jumping headlong into another quagmire because they don''t want to ask the tough questions because they don''t want to lose the election. I don''t see it that way because the politicians are so busy running their campaigns, maybe they haven''t really though these issues through except at the level of how it helps their careers. If we ask the tough questions, they''ll be forced to adapt accordingly. And given that they both have the same platform, neither wins or loses if they both have to adapt . . .
* * * * *
I mean like if you''''re just supporting the escalation in Afghanistan because you want to win the election, just say so. But how exactly Afghanistan is any less of a quagmire than Iraq I don''''t see. Like I said before, everybody looks back at Saddam now as just being a paper tiger. Four years from now when our dollar has turned into the peso, I don''''t want to be hearing people say that Bin Laden was just a guy in a cave.
Posted by SamTheTVCat
-------------------------
Tough for me to swallow the comparison of fuedal Afghanistan with the Persian/Arab conflict. Several orders of magnitude difference, it seems to me.
And Saddam was not involved with taking down the Twin Towers - the guy in the cave was, along with his cohort.
And Saddam was not involved with taking down the Twin Towers the guy in the cave was, along with his cohort."-----
Posted by hadenough43
I''m sorry, but those just sound like rationalizations from somebody who just wants to see Barack win. Because about 5 posts ago you stated that "I don''t know if Osama is dead or alive, and I really don''t care."
Sorry I''m starting to get impatient, cranky and snippy which usually means it time to turn in . . . I sometimes get insomnia, so I might be tempted to return LOL but probably time for me to turn in anyway.
Have a good evening everybody!
Posted by hadenough43
It''s so frustrating because neither party was advocating staying out of Iraq either and look what we got. I''ve spent the last 5 years looking back and wondering whether I should have done more or said something different that might have resonated with people because so many peoples'' lives were affected. I mean like Scott McClellan even pointed out that he couldn''t believe how little the Bush administration got questioned in the run-up to the war because everybody was so scared. I thought people have learned from that . . .
Posted by whiskyrocker
There was a troop that was quoted on ABC the other day saying the same thing that really shook me out of my stupor - hopefully Barack and the press were hearing that kind of feedback on his trip. After 5 years of fighting that really ought to be a factor of the equation!
Night everybody :)
---"And another thing - I don''t know of any candidate that is advocating the withdrawel from BOTH countries."---
Posted by hadenough43
I think that both Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney would advocate for a withdrawal from both countries.
Posted by whiskyrocker
-------------------------
Whats the alternative - Somebody attacks the USA and we say "They get a pass" Destroying them would be too tough a job?
----------
I never said anything about no fighting I just said it''s a ****ing quagmire.
Re: "Whats the alternative - Somebody attacks the USA and we say "They get a pass" Destroying them would be too tough a job?"
Posted by hadenough43
We could have bombed Albania or Tonga instead. It would have made about as much sense.
Or, we could just lash out wildly in all directions, until we run out of ammo.
That''d show em''.
Posted by hadenough43
We could have bombed Albania or Tonga instead. It would have made about as much sense.
Posted by FeelFree4U
---------------------
It is gonna take a very long time to repair the damage the idiot son has done to this country....
Re: "obama agenda "favors leaving behind a residual force to protect U.S. personnel, train Iraqi security forces and counter attacks by al Qaeda", and act as sitting ducks..."
Posted by soshljustic
Good point. Best to apologize and withdraw immediately, and to focus on bringing the regime and their accomplices before a war crimes tribunal.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 21
- next
See all 1043 Comments