Moments ago, Barack Obama reinforced his plan for Iraq. In the major policy speech Obama said:
As president, I will pursue a tough, smart, and principled national security strategy. . . . I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century. . . It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large.
McCain is set to answer the speech at a New Mexico town hall meeting at noon EDT.
The speech echoed Obama's op-ed in the New York Times yesterday. There, he repeated his belief that "we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in." In case you missed the piece, for some of the highlights, read more.
- Obama would redeploy and remove combat brigades in 16 months (by summer 2010). Remaining forces would target remnants of al Qaeda, protect American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, train Iraqi forces.
- Obama would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees. He would also add at least two combat brigades to Afghanistan, and would not pursue a "misguided desire" to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
- Factors that still exist today led Obama to oppose the surge, including: the strain on the military, the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, the $200 billion more than budgeted spent on Iraq, and the lack of Iraqi political advancements.
- Obama contrasted himself to President Bush and rival John McCain, by maintaining: "They call any timetable for the removal of American troops 'surrender' even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government."
Here's how Obama contrasts himself to McCain and Bush:
Regarding travel plans, Barack Obama will visit Iraq with Republican Senator and Iraq war critic Chuck Hagel. Hagel, the Republican incarnation of Joe Leiberman, voted against the invasion of Iraq and has refused to endorse John McCain. Perhaps the conservative Hagel is auditioning for Obama's Team of Rivals.
Best Mountain
Lowie
Emily And Fin
"diplomatic offensive" makes me smile... sounds like an oxymoron.
1it makes me picture politicians with papers in their hands chasing people down the street!
2quick! retreat! its a diplomatic offensive!
3
4I am sorry but Senator Obama is wrong. The majority of those responsible for the attacks on September 11 have been captured or killed. The war on terror is not a short, time tabled event.The surge worked. Ask the men and women who were actually there or go to vetsforfreedom.com
5Go "Team of Rivals"!!!!
6Well, certainly the hijackers are dead - otherwise Hunter, you might want to share your information with Congress.
7Hunterme, I viewed the website, but in those few minutes didn't really see what you were refering to, so I'll go back and do more reading. I don't think you should be sorry for your opinion that Obama is wrong.
But I do disagree with you. While Obama did not quantify the remaining terrorists, Osama Bin Laden is still at large. If he hasn't been caught, there must be many people supporting and hiding him. Those are still terrorists to our country and our safety.
Obama does want to end this global war on terror, peacefully.
8Al Queda and the Taliban have been regrouping in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Obama has been calling for more focus on that since 2002 (I first saw it in his speech against the war in Iraq). They are the ones that carried out 9/11, and with Bin Laden, they have not been caught. They are more powerful than ever. They over threw a US Base in Afghanistan yesterday. (A BASE!!!!)
9Of course those responsible for 9/11 were killed. It was a suicide attack.
10Again, not a base. An outpost.
11I know I posted this on the other thread, but just in case people don't read that one -
Just an FYI - a base has hundreds, perhaps thousands of troops. An outpost is much, much smaller usually with fewer than 200 people.
12Perhaps.
13Okay a base or an outpost does that make the attack less significant?
14Gitsie, you saved me the trouble.
15Cabaker already stated in the other one that she's not saying it makes it less significant; she just wants to be sure the correct information is out there.
16If you're talking about 200 insurgents taking over an outpost with 50 people, yes I would say thats less significant. When you phrase it as if 200 insurgents took over a base of 3000 American troops, than that would speak to a much bigger issue.
Its the difference between some guys knocking off a mini-mart and someone knocking off the Federal Reserve.... NOT that same thing.
Esp. when you consider that this outpost was only in existence for 3 days before it was attacked and there are conflicting reports as to whether or not any of the insurgents actually got INSIDE the outpost.
This part struck me - "...with insurgents firing from homes and a mosque" A mosque huh? Nice. Make sure we get them Geneva conventions, this is clearly traditional warfare.
17This was from Citizen yesterday:
Militants Invade Base in Afghanistan:
18More than 100 insurgents invaded a US post in north-eastern Afghanistan yesterday sparking hours of fighting and leaving nine US troops dead. Using rocket propelled grenades and homemade mortars to bombard the base, they attacked the base from several sides near the border with Pakistan. The attack led to one of the single worst losses of life for foreign troops since operations began in 2001.
Any loss of American lives is a tragedy and of course there should be an investigation and we should use it to make our tactics more efficient.
But to act as if a bunch of insurgents TOOK OVER a BASE with thousands of US troops as if they are THAT highly trained and better than our own fighters, strikes me as not only factually incorrect but emotionally manipulative.
Jill - thats not a personal attack, i've heard it being phrased that was from news outlets and other people etc etc, so thats why i'm trying to put it in some perspective.
19So, because Citizen posted incorrect information, we should continue to use it?
20Jill its NOT A BASE. I don't know what to tell you. It is an outpost.
Yahoo says outpost.
CNN says outpost.
The AP says outpost.
MSNBC says outpost.
Our own MILITARY calls it an OUTPOST. It is NOT a base. Writers may not realize there is a difference, and use the terms interchangably, but that is WRONG. It is not factually correct.
21Lilkimbo, that is not what I am saying at all. I was just showing where I got it, that I didn't pull it out of thin air. Sigh.
Where did you get that I was saying it is ok to use incorrect information? That is a pretty heavy
accusation, and I don't appreciate it.
Cabaker, I appreciate your pointing out the differences, because I do think details are important.
22I know you do Jill. I just get really frustrated because there is just so much misinformation out there in regards to the military.
23Once again, I thank you for clarifying the incorrect information. I was just showing where I got it from, I wasn't arguing that you were incorrect.
Dang, people are excited to fight today.
Everyone, have one on me...
24I didn't say that, Jill. I used a question mark for a reason, because I was asking if that was what you were saying.
It's pretty heavy of you to accuse me of saying that about you, and I don't appreciate it.
Sigh
25I guess you are included in the "people" who are excited to fight today!
26Likimbo, cabaker just pointed out that the attack was less significant. I really don't see the point of constantly pointing out how many troops were attacked, it's still tragic.
27Gitsie, she did that after I made my point.
28There's no way I could have known what she would later say.
29Come on. If you were sincerely asking me if I was for the continued use of incorrect information, that would be silly.
Can we have those great productive discussions again?
30I was asking if you thought that information was correct, I guess.
31And I said right after that that its still tragic. But it doesn't mean that our strategy as a whole is failing nor does it mean that our troops are not well trained or stretched too thin. If it was an actual base that was actually overthrown, then we could say that those things might be the culprit, but since it was an outpost that had existed for 3 days and had minimal staff, I don't think it should be used as an example of how bad we're doing there.
32Or as an example of how strong the taliban is. Its been speculated that it was about 200 insurgents, but I can't find anything that says how many troops were at that outpost. So if it was a fight of 200 against 50, then we're talking about blunt force and numbers, which in my mind doesn't mean the Taliban is stronger or smarter or anything more than they have been.
Now, if it was 200 insurgents and they took over a base of 3000, then we could make some of those assumptions.
33Cabaker, I posted something similar to what I would reply now on the other thread. Kind of weird to have similar conversations in different places!
34I know its freaking me out!!!
35It's like walking into another room, and feeling like you've already been there, and then forgetting why you came in in the first place.
(Although maybe that's just me...)
36Careful shrugging off any opposition in Afghanistan, or celebrating our strength. These are people who sent the Soviet Army packing, and the Soviets didn't have to travel the distance we do to get there.
37Who cares how big the outpost/base was? The point is, they're stepping up the fight, being much bolder (the prison breakout) and they know the terrain, the people and the resources better than we do. It's their homeland. If we're not 100% clear on our mission there and ready to dedicate the resources to achieve that mission, we should leave - because they know what they want and what they're willing to do to get it. And recruitment possibilities in that region tends to favor them.
I feel the same way, Dave. Or, I say something in one room, but think I said it in the other one. Then I will say something along the lines of, "like I said,..." Or, maybe I do it to purposely confuse people.
38I think it's important to note that they had some help from us in sending the Soviet army packing.
39Noted. So who's going to help us?
40I think we are 100% clear on what we need to do there and what resources are needed, but no one wants to admit to it because people like to think we're fighting an organized distinguishable army in a traditional warfare setting. We're not. Plain and simple. And what we need to do to win quickly, probably isn't going to happen.
41Stephley- I assumed you were an educated individual on such foreign relation matters. I am sorry I assumed that you knew that those responsible for the September 11 attacks went beyond just those 19 who died in the attacks. Don't worry though I will let Congress know for you though. If it makes you feel better though they were aware of it when I was there.
42Hunter, I believe your imperious, demeaning comment was for me? Please do let congress know as well as letting them know that the surge worked because al Sadr let it work and also let them know for me that a war on terror is about as effective as a war on drugs, poverty and ignorance. You don't win wars on a random nouns.
43Sorry, Hunter, I didn't read Stephley's comment after mine.
Still, a war on random nouns is silly.
44I posted this on another thread, but thought it might be a better fit here...
One thing I do have to point out is that Obama has called for more troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan for some time now, and has said that because there are so many troops in Iraq we haven't been able to accomplish that.
His opinion has been verified by Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said that additional troops were needed in Afghanistan but too many were tied down in Iraq to make that happen.
Now McCain is calling for more troops in Afghanistan.
To me, this shows that:
1.) Obama's thoughts months ago have been shown to be accurate.
2.) The military leaders agree with Obama in this area.
3.) McCain is now agreeing to what Obama has said for some time.
The Bush administration has also followed the idea that Obama put forth in the Democratic debate (that he was grilled for), when he said that if he had actionable intelligence, that he would strike targets in Pakistan. Since that debate, the Bush Administration has done exactly that.
45McCain has been saying that for some time now, too. (about the more troops in Afghanistan)
46McCain has been saying that for some time now, too. (about the more troops in Afghanistan)
47Sneaky double post!
48lilkim for commenter of the month!
GTR!
49Team Red...always trying to get that double post in there to reclaim your "Poster of the Month" title! I see how you work!
50Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.