"Troops may need to remain in Iraq.... "I have always said . . . I would always reserve the right to do what's best-" -- Obama said."
FARGO, N.D. - Democrat Barack Obama struggled yesterday to explain how his upcoming trip to Iraq might refine, but not basically alter, his promise to quickly remove US combat troops from the war.
A dustup over war policy - one of the main issues separating the Illinois senator from his Republican opponent, John McCain - overshadowed Obama's town hall meeting with veterans to talk about patriotism and his plans to care for them. Republicans pounced on the chance to characterize Obama as altering one of the core policies that drove his candidacy "for the sake of political expedience." He denied equally forcefully that he was shifting positions.
In Fargo, Obama hastily called a news conference to discuss news of a sixth straight month of nationwide job losses, but the questioning turned to Iraq policy and his impending trip there.
WHY?
And why is the WAR all of a sudden an ISSUE again -- at least, for Obama?
Talk about the damn AGENDA PUSHING!
He left the impression that his talks with military commanders there could refine his promise to remove US combat troops within 16 months of taking office.
Less than four hours later, after the town hall meeting, Obama appeared before reporters for another statement and round of questions to "try this again."
"Apparently I was not clear enough this morning," he said. He blamed any confusion on the McCain campaign, which he said had "primed the pump with the press" to suggest "we were changing our policy when we haven't."
"I have said throughout this campaign that this war was ill-conceived, that it was a strategic blunder, and that it needs to come to an end," he said. "I have also said I would be deliberate and careful about how we get out. That position has not changed. I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position."
He said when he talked earlier about refining his policy after talking with commanders in Iraq, he was referring not to his 16-month timeline, but to how many troops may need to remain in Iraq to train the local army and police and what troop presence might be needed "to be sure Al Qaeda doesn't reestablish a foothold there."
Later in the session, he said it is possible that the 16-month timeline could change if the pace of withdrawal needs to be slowed some months to ensure troop safety. "I have always said . . . I would always reserve the right to do what's best," Obama said.
During his presidential campaign, Obama has gone from the hard-edged, vocal opposition to Iraq that defined his early candidacy to more nuanced rhetoric that calls for the phased-out drawdown of all combat brigades that, at a rate of one or two a month, could take 16 months. He has said that if Al Qaeda builds bases in Iraq, he would keep troops either in the country or the region to carry out "targeted strikes."Hey, Obama, get a CLUE about "Al-CIA-Duh," would ya?
Nope!!
"Senator brandishes admiral's words" by Bryan Bender Boston Globe | July 4, 2008
WASHINGTON - Democrat Barack Obama's presidential campaign yesterday seized on comments by the nation's top military officer that the war in Iraq is draining military resources from Afghanistan and criticized Republican opponent John McCain for opposing troop reductions in Iraq.
"We have five times as many troops [in Iraq] as we have in Afghanistan, but John McCain wants to continue at current troop levels in Iraq indefinitely, while we shortchange the effort in Afghanistan," Susan Rice, former assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration and a top foreign policy adviser to Obama, said.
He's got all these Clinton people around him, so WTF?!
We've all been hornswoggled!!!!
Rice spoke to reporters after Admiral Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the war in Iraq is preventing the Pentagon from dispatching additional troops to Afghanistan, where a resurgent Taliban has inflicted record numbers of US casualties.
"I don't have troops I can reach for . . . to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq," Mullen said. "Afghanistan has been and remains an economy-of-force campaign, which by definition means we need more forces there."
McCain has argued that it would be foolhardy to reduce forces abruptly in Iraq and risk a return to chaos just when violence is subsiding and political foes are showing signs of reconciling. He has said NATO countries need to contribute more troops to the Afghanistan war.
But Rice and Sara Sewall, another former Pentagon official now advising Obama, said that Mullen's comments confirm what Obama has been arguing for nearly a year: The Iraq war has hobbled the hunt for Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
"The oxygen has really been sucked out of the [Afghan] theater into Iraq," said Sewall. "The issue is not simply ground forces. It is also a question of reconnaissance and surveillance assets and air support."
The United States currently has about 32,000 forces in Afghanistan and 140,000 in Iraq."
As long as DemocraPs buy into the 9/11 lie, they are worthless!
And it looks more and more like it's Bob Barr or bust in these quarters!
