Obama's Response: Time To End War That Should Never Have Been Started
Barack Obama's statement on Bush's Iraq speech:
"It is long past time to end a war that never should have started. President Bush was wrong when he took us to war, he was wrong when he escalated this war in January, and he is wrong to stay the course now. I opposed this war from the beginning, I introduced legislation in January that would have already started to bring our troops home, and I will continue to lead the fight in the Senate for a fixed timeline with a deadline for the removal of all of our combat troops."The American people are not going to be fooled by the same false promises of success that got us into Iraq. Iraq's leaders are not making the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge, but the President wants us to keep giving him a blank check. We must not continue the enormous sacrifice of our troops, our military readiness, our treasury, and our standing in the world just to keep the violence at the same unacceptable levels they were at in 2005 and 2006.
"That is why I have proposed an immediate and sustained removal of 1 to 2 combat brigades each month to conclude by the end of next year. We have to come together not as Republicans and Democrats but as Americans to turn the page in Iraq so that we can recapture our unity of purpose at home and our leadership around the world."
Comments (7)
Daniel wrote on September 13, 2007 9:32 PM:Good for Obama, but it's fascinating how little space the different candidates are leaving between each other. The Politico reported today how Clinton is following Obama's positions very closely.
www.campaigndiaries.com Mark wrote on September 13, 2007 11:00 PM:I was at Obama's town hall event in Davenport, Iowa, yesterday and he really delivered a sensible proposal for how to get out of the quagmire in Iraq. His plan includes the introduction of necessary civilian. I like this guy.
gqmartinez wrote on September 13, 2007 11:24 PM:I know no one at TPM likes to hear anything bad about Obama's strategy, but I'll chime in nonetheless. I speculated early on that his attempt to use the fact that he wasn't in the Senate to vote for or against AUMF as an attack on the other candidates wouldn't work and probably alienate potential supporters. He does it again here: "The American people are not going to be fooled by the same false promises of success that got us into Iraq."
What many Dem primary voters see, and most people generally, is that Bush lied us into this war. Regardless of the unanimous opposition to the war now, many were fooled and blame Bush for scaring us into this war. Here Obama is saying--and it really is out of political necessity at this point--or at least implying is that some people supported this war because of "false promises of succcess". No, many people were not as against the war as they are now because they believed we were expecting an imminent "mushroom cloud" as proof. Then there was Colin Powell's speech. People were more willing to accept casualties because they believed Hussein was an immediate threat with WMD, not because of "false promises of success".
Contrast this to yesterday's headlines about Clinton telling Bush to stop lying. Obama is getting it wrong on substance and in a political sense. This particular line is going to fail. He's got some potentially useful arguments given his fortunate position of not being in the senate at the time of the vote, but his advisers are sticking to the same game at their own peril.
PaulD wrote on September 14, 2007 12:17 AM:To gqmartinez: The point that you miss is the fact that, though Obama wasn't in the Senate at the time of the vote, he spoke out publically against the war at a time when it wasn't popular to do so. And at a time when he was running for an election. That shows better judgment and foresight than those in the Senate who failed to read the NIE report and decide for themselves. Among others, Senators Daschle, Sarbanes and Leahy all voted no on the authorization, because they made an informed decision without caving in to the pressures of pundits or appearing to look weak. That's why Hillary voted yes, and that's why Clinton will have to do more than tell Bush to stop lying in order to show real leadership on this issue.
AJ wrote on September 14, 2007 8:45 AM:gqmartinez is right, Obama's "I told you so," mantra is getting tired. It also distracts from the questions at hand, which have little to with the challenges we now face in Iraq.
Coonsey wrote on September 14, 2007 9:18 AM:President Bush’s Message, “Not On My Watch”
That should be the media’s headlines over the weekend after hearing the President make his 8th primetime television speech about Iraq to the American people.
While I’m not a supporter of John Edwards, he said it best tonight during his paid for commercial that was aired not long after the President spoke.
"In January, after years of evidence that military actions cannot force a political solution, the president announced a military surge to force a political solution. In May, he vetoed a plan to end the war, demanded more time to show the surge could work, and Congress gave it to him. Now, after General Petraeus reports the surge has produced no progress toward a political solution, what does the president want? More time for the surge to work, when all of us know it won't."
The President informed the nation tonight that he expects to leave a U.S. presence in Iraq way beyond his presidency. He said Iraqi leaders "have asked for an enduring relationship with America.” The mission keeps changing, have you noticed?
What happened to, “Missions Accomplished” Mr. President?
Con't... Coonsey's View
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/
I'm very glad Obama was opposed to the war prior to the start of it. He wasn't in the Senbate then so never voted on it. No problem.
Now, Obama is a United States Senator and I am interested in what he proposes to do as a Senator to end the war. What I see is another politician who says he wants to bring the war to an end (which I believe)but is doing precisely nothing to bring the war to an end other than making statements about his opposition. The Congress can end this war. They have the power.
Obama is one of only 535 citizens who can actually bring the war to an end whether or not Bush agrees. But, just like the other Democrats in congress, he is not doing anything substnatively to excercise the power he has to, in fact, do something about the catastrophe unfolding in Iraq. Not good enough Senator. People are dying. Our sons and daughter. The sons and daughters of innocent Iraqis too.
Show me some action that proves your committment to ending the war right now as opposed to antiwar rhetoric that really makes no difference whatsoever. Until then, I'll reserve my vote for someone who isn't afraid to use their power and influence to stop the immoral slaughter going on in our name in Iraq.
