President sets Iraq mission; Generals then implement tactics
Q: Will you vote to confirm Gen. David Petraeus in his nomination to be the head of Central Command?
A: Yes. I think Petraeus has done a good tactical job in Iraq.
Q: If Gen Patraeus says your plan to get out of Iraq is a mistake, will you replace
him?
A: I will listen to General Petraeus given the experience that he has accumulated over the last several years. But it would be my job as commander in chief to set the mission, to make the strategic decisions in light of the problems that we're
having in Afghanistan & Pakistan.
Q: So would you replace him or would you just say, "I'm the commander in chief, follow my order?"
A: What I will do is say, "We have a new mission. It is my strategic assessment that we have to provide a time table
to the Iraqi government. I want you to tell me how best to execute this new assignment, and I am happy to listen to the tactical considerations and any ideas you have, but what I will not do is to continue to let the Iraqi government off the hook."
President sets Iraq mission; give generals a new mission
Q: You have said "we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most." No matter what the military commanders say?
A: The commander in chief sets the mission. That's not the role of the generals. The president's approach lately has been to say, well,
I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus. Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And unfortunately we have had a bad mission. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberatel
in an orderly fashion out of Iraq, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. And I have to look at not just the situation in Iraq, but the fact that we continue to see al
Qaeda getting stronger in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, we continue to see anti-American sentiment fanned all cross the Middle East, and we are overstretched in a way that we do not have a strategic reserve at this point.
Take no options off the table if Iran attacks Israel
Q: Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option that poses a threat to Israel. Should it be US policy to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the US?
OBAMA: Our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the
Iranians. I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons, &that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.
Q: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?
OBAMA:
It is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we would consider unacceptable, and the US would take appropriate action.
Q: Sen. Clinton, would you?
CLINTON: We should be
looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the US, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.
FactCheck: Overstated displaced Iraqis; actually 4.2 million
Obama stretched the facts when he said there are "two-and-a-half million displaced people inside of Iraq and several million more outside of Iraq." The Red Cross put the figure of those displaced inside the country at 2.3 million as of Sept.
2007, and lowered its estimate to 2.2 million as the security situation improved and some people have returned home. As for displaced Iraqis outside the nation's borders, according to a recent report from the UN, that figure is around 2 million.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview
Feb 11, 2008
$2 trillion and the loss of life in Iraq are not sustainable
I want to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, but I want to make sure that we get all our combat troops out as quickly as we can safely. Now, the estimates are maybe that's two brigades per month. At that pace it would be some time
in 2009 that we had our combat troops out, depending on whether Bush follows through on his commitment to draw down from the surge. We don't know that yet. We are spending $9 billion to $10 billion every month. That's money that could be going in South
Carolina to lay broadband lines in rural communities, to put kids back to school. When McCain says we'll be there for 50 or 60 or 100 years, it is not just the loss of life, which is obviously the most tragic aspect of it, it's also the fact that
financially it is unsustainable. We will have spent $2 trillion at least, it's estimated, by the time this whole thing is over. That's enough to have rebuilt every road, bridge, hospital, school in the US, and still have money left over.
KEYES: What probability was there that there was going to be a biological or nuclear attack against the US [from Iraq]? Bush acted to reduce that probability to zero.
OBAMA: There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no connection between
Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This war has made us less safe because it betrayed a set of international rules that were in place to protect us, that could have helped us defeat terrorism. Mr. Keyes implied that by fighting this war in
Iraq we have reduced the probability of a terrorist attack to zero. That cannot be the case when we have nuclear fuel lying around in the former Soviet Union. We still have ports that are insecure. We have nuclear and chemical plants that
are still insecure. The notion that we have eliminated the terrorist threat while Osama bin Laden roams free in the hills of Afghanistan is simply not the case.
KEYES: We have reduced the probability of an attack from Saddam Hussein to zero.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes
Oct 21, 2004
Saddam has no connections to Al Qaeda nor to 9/11
Q: Is the Iraq War the right war at the right time?
OBAMA: There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This war has made us less safe. Osama bin Laden roams free in the hills of Afghanistan.
KEYES:
The breathtaking naivete of the assertion that there is no connection between Al Qaeda & Saddam Hussein when Saddam was providing payments to the families of Hamas suicide bombers who had ties to Al Qaeda. I worked on the National Security Council staff.
Maybe that's why I understand the situation a little better than Barack Obama. Those ties are real and we cannot afford to let them operate.
OBAMA: I don't think that Mr. Keyes knowledge of the situation is better than
Donald Rumsfeld's or the other experts who have confirmed that there was no connection between those who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 and Iraq. This was an ideologically driven war. But now we do have a hotbed of terrorism to fight in Iraq.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes
Oct 21, 2004
Barack Obama on Iraq War
$2.7 billion each week of Iraq spending is unsustainable
Q: You were opposed to the surge from the beginning. Were you wrong?
A: It is indisputable that we've seen violence reduced in Iraq. That's a credit to our brave men and women in uniform. The 1st Cavalry of Fort Hood played an enormous role in pushing
back al Qaeda out of Baghdad. We honor their service. But this is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder. When we're having a debate with McCain, it is going to be much easier for the candidate who was opposed to the concept of invading
Iraq in the first place to have a debate about the wisdom of that decision than having to argue about the tactics subsequent to the decision. Not only have we been diverted from Afghanistan, we've been diverted from Latin America. We contribute
our entire foreign aid to Latin America is $2.7 billion, approximately what we spend in Iraq in a week. It is any surprise, then, that you've seen people like Hugo Chavez and countries like China move into the void, because we've been neglectful of that.
Q: Will you use every tool in our country's arsenal to prevent civil war in Iraq after troops are pulled out?
A: If we are doing this right, if we have a phased redeployment where we're as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, then there'
not reason why we shouldn't be able to prevent the wholesale slaughter some people have suggested might occur. And part of that means we are engaging in the diplomatic efforts that are required within Iraq, among friends, like Egypt, and Turkey and Saudi
Arabia, but also enemies like Iran and Syria. They have to have buy-in into that process. We have to have humanitarian aid now. We also have two-and-a-half million displaced people inside of Iraq and several million more outside of Iraq.
We should be ramping up assistance to them right now. But I always reserve the right, in conjunction with a broader international effort, to prevent genocide or any wholesale slaughter than might happen inside of Iraq or anyplace else.
We have spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives. Thousands more have been maimed and injured as a consequence and are going to have difficulty putting their lives back together again.
This has undermined our security. In the meantime, Afghanistan has slid into more chaos than existed before we went into Iraq.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday
Jan 31, 2008
Iraq is distracting us from a host of global threats
It is important for us to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I will end this war. We will not have a permanent occupation and permanent bases in Iraq. When McCain suggests that we might be there 100 years, that indicates a profound
lack of understanding that we've got a whole host of global threats out there, including Iraq, but we've got a big problem right now in Afghanistan. Pakistan is of great concern. We are neglecting our foreign policy with respect to Latin America.
China is strengthening. If we neglect our economy by spending $200 billion every year in this war that has not made us more safe, that is undermining our long-term security. It is important for us to set a date. Because if we are going to send a signal t
the Iraqis that we are serious, and prompt the Shia, Sunni, & Kurds to actually come together & negotiate, they have to have clarity about how serious we are. It can't be muddy or fuzzy. They've got to know that we are serious about this process.
End the war, and end the mindset that got us into war
We've got to be very clear about what our mission is. We would make sure that our embassies & our civilians are protected; that we've got to care for Iraqi civilians, including the four million displaced already. We already have a humanitarian crisis, an
we have not taken those responsibilities seriously. We need a strike force that can take out potential terrorist bases that get set up in Iraq.
But the one important thing is that we not get mission creep, and we not start suggesting that we should hav
troops in Iraq to blunt Iranian influence. If we were concerned about Iranian influence, we should not have had this government installed in the first place. We shouldn't have invaded in the first place. It was part of the reason that it was such a
profound strategic error for us to go into this war.
I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war. I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.
Q: There has been some stability in parts of Iraq where there was turmoil before and that any quick, overly quick withdrawal could undermine all of that and all of that progress would be for naught. The number of US casualties has gone down. What do you
say?
A: I welcome the progress. This notion that Democrats don't want to see progress in Iraq is ridiculous. I have to hug mothers in rope lines during town hall meetings as they weep over their fallen sons and daughters. I want to get our troops home
safely, and I want us as a country to have this mission completed honorably. But the notion that somehow we have succeeded as a consequence of the recent reductions in violence means that we have set the bar so low it's buried in the sand at this point.
We went from intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government to spikes and horrific levels of violence and a dysfunctional government. Now, two years later, we're back to intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government.
The Iraq war was conceptually flawed from the start
It is much easier for us to have the argument, when we have a nominee who says, I always thought this was a bad idea, this was a bad strategy. It was not just a problem of execution. They screwed up the execution of it in all sorts of ways. Even McCain
has acknowledged that. Can we make an argument that this was a conceptually flawed mission, from the start? We need better judgment when we decide to send our young men and women into war, that we are making absolutely certain that it is because there is
an imminent threat, that American interests are going to be protected, that we have a plan to succeed and to exit, that we are going to train our troops properly and equip them properly and put them on proper rotations and treat them properly when they
come home. That is an argument we are going to have an easier time making if they can't turn around and say: But hold on a second; you supported this. That's part of the reason why I would be the strongest nominee on this argument of national security.
Title of Iraq war authorization bill stated its intent
The legislation, the authorization had the title, "An Authorization to Use US Military Force in Iraq." Everybody, the day after that vote was taken, understood this was a vote potentially to go to war. Clinton has claimed that she's got the experience on
day one. And part of the argument that I'm making in this campaign is that, it is important to be right on day one. The judgment that I've presented on this issue, and some other issues is relevant to how we're going to make decisions in the future.
It's not a function just of looking backwards, it's a function of looking forwards and how are we going to be making a series of decisions in a very dangerous world. The terrorist threat is real. And precisely because it's real--and we've got finite
resources. We don't have the capacity to just send our troops in anywhere we decide, without good intelligence, without a clear rationale. That's the kind of leadership that we need from the next president of the US. That's what I intend to provide.
Tonight Pres. Bush said that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that's just not true. Yes, our valiant soldiers have helped reduce the violence. But let there be no doubt--the Iraqi government has failed to seize the moment to reach compromises
necessary for an enduring peace. That was what we were told the surge was all about. So the only way we're finally going to pressure the Iraqis to reconcile and take responsibility for their future is to immediately begin a responsible withdrawal.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address
Jan 28, 2008
Iraq takes our eye off al Qaeda & Afghanistan
We need to begin this withdrawal [from Iraq] immediately is because this war has not made us safer. I opposed this war from the start in part because I was concerned that it would take our eye off al
Qaeda and distract us from finishing the job in Afghanistan. Sadly, that's what happened. It's time to heed our military commanders by increasing our commitment to Afghanistan, and it's time to protect the American people by taking the fight to al Qaeda.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address
Jan 28, 2008
Get our troops out by the end of 2009
I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009. We already saw today reports that the Iraqi minister suggests that we're going to be in there at least until 2018, a decade-long commitment. Currently, we are spending $9 to $10
billion a month. The notion is that we are going to sustain that at the same time as we're neglecting what we see happening in Afghanistan right now, where you have a luxury hotel in Kabul blown up by militants and the situation continues to worsen.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas
Jan 15, 2008
No permanent bases in Iraq
My first job as president is going to be to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff to responsibly, carefully, but deliberately start to phase out our involvement there and to make sure that we are putting the onus on the Iraqi government to come together and
do what they need to do to arrive at peace. I have been very specific in saying that we will not have permanent bases there. I will end the war as we understand it in combat missions. But that we are going to have to protect our embassy. We're going to
have to protect our civilians. We're engaged in humanitarian activity there. We are going to have to have some presence that allows us to strike if Al Qaida is creating bases inside of Iraq. So I cannot guarantee that we're not going to have a strategic
interest that I have to carry out as commander-in-chief to maintain some troop presence there, but it is not going to be engaged in a war and it will not be this sort of permanent bases and permanent military occupation that Bush seems to be intent on.
2002: Iraq will require US occupation of undetermined length
Q: [to Clinton]: The same week that you voted for the 2002 resolution on the use of military force against Iraq, Sen. Obama said: "I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the US, or to his neighbors.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale, without strong international support will
only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars." Who had the better judgment at tha
time?
CLINTON: In Sen. Obama's recent book, he clearly says he thought that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons, and that he still coveted nuclear weapons. By the summer of 2004, Sen. Obama said he wasn't sure how he would have voted.
FactCheck: No, violence in Iraq is LOWER than 2 years ago
Obama vastly understated the improvement in the security situation in Iraq when he said, "We saw a spike in the violence, the surge reduced that violence, and we now are, two years later, back where we started two years ago." There was indeed a spike in
the violence in Iraq during the last two years that has been receding as of late. Most recently, nearly all statistical indicators show that violence is sharply lower than it was two years ago, according to the Brookings Institution's Iraq Index.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic debate
Jan 5, 2008
Congress decides deployment level & duration, not president
Q: Can the president disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops--either by capping the number of troops, or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments?
A: No, the President does not have that power. To date, several
Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.
Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power
Dec 20, 2007
Surge strategy has made a difference in Iraq but failed
Q: Is Petraeus correct when he says that the troop increase is bringing security to Iraq?
A: There is no doubt that because we put American troops in Iraq, more American troops in Iraq, that they are doing a magnificent job. They are making a
difference in certain neighborhoods. But the overall strategy is failed because we have not seen any change in behavior among Iraq's political leaders. That is the essence of what we should be trying to do in Iraq. That's why I'm going to bring this war
to a close. That's why we can get our combat troops out within 16 months and have to initiate the kind of regional diplomacy, not just talking to our friends, but talking to our enemies, like Iran and Syria, to try to stabilize the situation there. This
year, we saw the highest casualty rates for American troops in Iraq since this war started. The same is true in Afghanistan. If we have seen a lowering violence rate, that's only compared to earlier this year. We're back to where we started back in 2006.
Introduced bill to redeploy troops in May 2007; it failed
Obama introduced a bill to begin troop redeployment in May of 2007 (it failed, as he must have known it would), but he has been critical of Rep. John Murtha's calls for a quick withdrawal. Again, that strategy: tacking slightly to the left while attackin
the Left to make his position seem centrist. He was an early critic of the Iraq invasion, and in the most recent vote to cut off funding for the war he voted yes, but only at the last minute and without comment, following Hillary's lead.]
Source: The Contenders, by Laura Flanders, p. 73
Nov 11, 2007
Clinton has not been consistent on the Iraq War
Q: Was Sen. Clinton's answer to the opposition of the Iraq war question consistent, in your view?
A: I don't think it's consistent with the Iran resolution, for example, which specifically stated that we should structure our forces in Iraq with an eye
toward blunting Iranian influence. It is yet another rationale for what we're doing in Iraq, & that's a mistake. We've got to focus on diplomacy. The president has to lead that diplomacy, which is why I've said I would convene a meeting of Muslim leaders
upon taking office because I think we have to send a strong signal that we are willing to listen and not just talk, and certainly not just dictate or engage in military action. But the real key for the next president is someone who has the credibility of
not having been one of the co-authors of this engagement in Iraq. I am in a strong position to be able to say I thought this was a bad idea in the first place. We now have to fix it. We have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.
2002: I don't oppose all war; I do oppose dumb war
On October 26, 2002, Obama said: "I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in
this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the
uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A war based not
on reason but on passion."
In 2002, when Obama opposed war with Iraq, he knew he would run for the Senate in 2004 and this stand might cost him the election. No other major Democratic candidate for president opposed the war before it happened.
Leave troops for protection of Americans & counterterrorism
The first thing I will do is initiate a phased redeployment. Military personnel indicate we can get one brigade to two brigades out per month. I would immediately begin that process. We would get combat troops out of Iraq.
The only troops that would remain would be those that have to protect US bases and US civilians, as well as to engage in counterterrorism activities in Iraq.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College
Sep 26, 2007
Hopes to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013, but no pledge
Q: Gen. Petraeus and Pres. Bush indicated that in January 2009, there will be 100,000 troops in Iraq. What do you do?
A: I hope and will work diligently in the Senate to bring an end to this war before I take office. And it is very important at this
stage, understanding how badly the president's strategy has failed, that we not vote for funding without some timetable for this war. If there are still large troop presences in when I take office, then
Q: Will you pledge that by
January 2013, the end of your first term, there will be no US troops in Iraq?
A: I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there.
I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises, not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out.
Surge has not succeeded because it ignores political issues
Q: What's your assessment of the Gen. Petraeus testimony on Iraq?
A: Well, after hearing two days of testimony, let's be clear on exactly what they said. That after putting an additional 30,000 troops in, far longer & more troops than the president had
initially said, we have gone from a horrendous situation of violence in Iraq to the same intolerable levels of violence that we had back in June of 2006. So, essentially, after all this we're back where we were 15 months ago. And what has not happened is
any movement with respect to the sort of political accommodations among the various factions, the Shia, the Sunni, and Kurds that were the rationale for surge and that ultimately is going to be what stabilizes Iraq. So, I think it is fair to say that the
president has simply tried to gain another six months to continue on the same course that he's been on for several years now. It is a course that will not succeed. It is a course that is exacting an enormous toll on the American people & our troops.
Tell people the truth: quickest is 1-2 brigades per month
RICHARDSON: With all due respect to Sen. Obama & Sen. Clinton, what I heard tonight is that even in their second terms, they will not get the troops out. Therefore, the war will not end.
OBAMA: It is important to tell the American people the truth.
Military commanders indicate that they can safely get combat troops out at the pace of one to two brigades a month. That is the quickest pace that we can do it safely. I have said I will begin immediately and we will do it as rapidly as we can.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College
Sep 6, 2007
No good options in Iraq--just bad options & worse options
Q: If you get us out of Iraq and somehow al Qaeda takes over anyway, what will you do then?
A: Well, look, if we had followed my judgment originally, we wouldn't have been in Iraq. We're here now. And we've got no good options.
We got bad options and worse options. The only way we're going to stabilize Iraq and make sure that al Qaeda does not take over in the long term is to begin a phased redeployment so that we don't have anti-American sentiment as a focal point for al
Qaeda in Iraq. We can still have troops in the region, outside of Iraq, that can help on counterterrorism activities, and we've got to make sure that they don't establish long-term bases there.
But right now, the bases are in Afghanistan and in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan; that's where we've got to focus.
Be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in
Q: How do we pull out now, without opening Iraq up for Iran and Syria?
A: Look, I opposed this war from the start. Because I anticipated that we would be creating the kind of sectarian violence that we've seen and that it would distract us from the war
on terror. At this point, I think we can be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. But we have to send a clear message to the
Iraqi government as well as to the surrounding neighbors that there is no military solution to the problems that we face in Iraq. So we have to begin a phased withdrawal; have our combat troops out by March 31st of next year; and initiate the kind of
diplomatic surge that is necessary in these surrounding regions to make sure that everybody is carrying their weight. And that is what I will do on day one, as president of the United States, if we have not done it in the intervening months.
Troops not dying in vain; but we need plans for success
Q: [to Gravel]: Were the deaths of Vietnam in vain?
GRAVEL: Our soldiers died in Vietnam in vain. In Iraq, there's only one thing worse than a soldier dying in vain; it's more soldiers dying in vain.
Q: Are the troops in Iraq dying in vain?
OBAMA:
I never think that troops who do their mission for their country, are dying in vain. But what I do think is that the civilian leadership and the commander in chief has a responsibility to make sure that they have the plans that are going to allow our
troops to succeed in their mission.
EDWARDS: I don't think any of our troops die in vain when they go and do the duty that's been given to them by the commander in chief. No, I don't think they died in vain.
But I think the question is: What is going to be done to stop this war? What we need to do is turn up the heat on George Bush and hold him responsible and make this president change course.
We live in a more dangerous world because of Bush's actions
We live in a more dangerous world, partly as a consequence of Bush's actions, primarily because of this war in Iraq that should have never been authorized or waged. What we've seen is a distraction from the battles that deal with al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
We have created an entire new recruitment network in Iraq, that we're seeing them send folks to Lebanon and Jordan and other areas of the region.
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College
Jun 3, 2007
Case for war was weak, but people voted their best judgment
Q: Do you think someone who authorized the use of force to go to war in Iraq should be president? A: I don't think it's a disqualifier. I think that people were making their best judgments at the time. When I looked at the issue, what I saw was a weak ca
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College
Jun 3, 2007
War in Iraq is "dumb" but troops still need equipment
Q: You have called this war in Iraq "dumb." How do you square that position with those who have sacrificed so much? And why have you voted for appropriations for it in the past?
A: I am proud that I opposed this war from the start,
because I thought that it would lead to the disastrous conditions that we've seen on the ground in Iraq. What I've also said is if we're going to send hundreds of thousands of our young men and women there, then they have the equipment that
they need to make sure that they come home safely. I'm proud of the fact that I put forward a plan in January that mirrors what Congress ultimately adopted. And it says there's no military solution to this.
We've got to have a political solution, begin a phased withdrawal, and make certain that we've got benchmarks in place so that the Iraqi people can make a determination about how they want to move forward.
Increase ground forces in Iraq to decrease troop rotations
Q: What would you consider to be a "mission complete" status in Iraq?
A: One of the enormous difficulties of this war has been the strain it's placed on our men and women in uniform. We have seen our Army and our Reserves and our National Guard all
being stretched to a breaking point. That's one of the reasons why I proposed that we're going to have to increase the size of our ground forces, so we can stop the sort of rotations that we've been placing them on, which have been putting enormous strai
not only on the soldiers themselves, but also their families. But we are one signature away or 16 votes away from ending this war. Now, if the president is not going to sign the bill that has been sent to him,
then what we have to do is gather up 16 votes in order to override his veto. We can't expect that we can continue to impose a military solution on what is essentially a political problem, and that's what we have to organize around.
Open-ended Iraq occupation must end: no military solution
Q: What is the best and fastest way to get out of Iraq?
A: I opposed this war from the start. In part because I believed that if we gave open-ended authority to invade Iraq in 2002, we would have an open-ended occupation of the sort that we have right
now. And I have stated clearly and unequivocally that that open-ended occupation has to end. The idea that the situation in Iraq is improving is simply not credible, and it's not reflective of the facts on the ground.
The hard truth is, there's no military solution to this war. Our troops have done all that they have been asked and more, but no amount of American soldiers are gonna solve the political differences that lie in the heart of the sectarian conflict.
Extending the surge is just going to put more men and women in the crossfire of a civil war.
Begin withdrawal May 1 2007; finish by March 31 2008
Since January, I have put forward a very specific plan that is designed to create the last best hope to pressure the Sunni and the Shia to reach political accommodation. That's to let the Iraqi government know that
America is not going to be there indefinitely. So, what my plan says is that on May 1st of this year, we need to begin a phased withdrawal from Iraq, with the goal of removing all combat troops by March 31st of next year.
And we've got 54 sponsors so far on the bill. We're gonna keep on pushing that agenda.
The withdrawal has to begin soon. It's time to end this war. It's time to refocus our efforts on the wider struggle against terror,
and it's time for us to work much more aggressively diplomatically both inside Iraq and regionally if we're gonna see the kind of stability in Iraq that all of us hope for.
Q: How would you include Syria and Iran in the effort toward establishing a stable, responsible, and non-hostile government in Iraq?
A: We have to realize that the entire Middle East has a huge stake in the outcome of Iraq, and that we have to engage
neighboring countries in finding a solution. Now, I believe that includes opening dialogue both Syria and Iran. We know these countries want us to fail. I'm under no illusions there, but I also know that neither Syria nor Iran want to see a security
vacuum in Iraq filled with chaos, and terrorism, and refugees and violence, since those could have a destabilizing effect on the entire region, including within their own countries. So, even as we remain steadfast in our opposition to their
support of terrorism, even as we continue to put pressure on Iran to stand down on its nuclear ambitions, it's absolutely critical that we talk to the Syrians and the Iranians about playing a more constructive role in Iraq.
Withdraw gradually and keep some troops in Iraq region
We must end this war in Iraq. I opposed this war from the beginning--in part because I believed that if we gave this President the open-ended authority to invade Iraq, we would end up with the open-ended occupation we find ourselves in today.
We shouldn't be sending more troops to Iraq, we should be bringing them home. It's time to find an end to this war. That's why I have a plan that will begin withdrawing our troops from Iraq on May 1st of this year, with the goal of removing all of our
combat forces from the country by March of 2008.
We have to make sure we're not as careless getting out of this war as we were getting in, and that's why this withdrawal would be gradual, and would keep some US troops in the region to prevent a wider
war and go after Al Qaeda and other terrorists.
But above all, it's a plan that recognizes a fact that just about everyone in the world understands except the White House--there is no military solution to this war.
Iraq 2002: ill-conceived venture; 2007: waste of resources
Obama [delivered] early speeches against the war in Iraq. The looming invasion, he said in 2002, was an ill-conceived venture that would "require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."
Obama's speeches lifted him to statewide prominence and paved the way for his march to the Senate. [In 2007, Obama] renewed his call for the redeployment of American troops in Iraq. "We can't waste our most precious resource--our young men and women."
Source: Hopes and Dreams, by Steve Dougherty, p. 19-20
Feb 15, 2007
Longtime critic of Iraq war
The Illinois senator is a longtime critic of the war, elected to the Senate after the conflict began. In a recent speech, Obama called for a "gradual and substantial" reduction of US forces.
Source: People's Daily (China), "Contenders views on the war"
Nov 23, 2006
The surge reduced violence, but at enormous cost
The bar of success has become so low that we've lost perspective on what should be our long-term national interests. It was a mistake to go in from the start, and that's why I opposed this war from the start. It has cost us upwards of $1 trillion.
It may get close to $2 trillion. We have lost young men and women on the battlefield, and we have not made ourself safer as a consequence. I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place
30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence. We started in 2006 with intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government. We saw a spike in the violence.
The surge reduced that violence, and we now are, two years later, back where we started two years ago. We have gone full circle at enormous cost to the American people.
Begin a phased redeployment to send a clear signal
What we have to do is to begin a phased redeployment to send a clear signal to the Iraqi government that we are not going to be there in perpetuity. We should be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I welcome the reductions of violence
that have taken place, although I would point out that much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province. Sunni tribes, who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, the
Americans may be leaving soon. We should start negotiating now. That's how you change behavior. That's why I will send a clear signal to the Iraqi government. They will have ample time to actually pass an oil law, which they've been talking about now
for years. We can't continue to ignore the enormous strains that this has placed on the American taxpayer, as well as the anti-American sentiment that it is fanning, and the neglect that's happening in Afghanistan as a consequence.
Saddam did not own and was not providing WMD to terrorists
It's simply not true that Saddam was providing weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. This incursion into Iraq has resulted in a situation in which terrorist recruits are up. It's been acknowledged, now, by the Pentagon, that the insurgents active in
Iraq are far higher. Terrorist attacks worldwide are the highest in 20 years. The notion that somehow we're less vulnerable in the US as a consequence of spending 200 billion dollars and sacrificing thousands of lives is simply not borne out by the facts
Source: IL Senate Debate
Oct 26, 2004
Initial military was extraordinarily successful in Iraq
Q: What has been the biggest success in Iraq?
A: The initial military was extraordinarily successful in moving into Iraq, and it exceeded all expectations, even those of us who expected the military to be successful were stunned and impressed by how
efficient our military and our brave fighting forces were in executing it. But missing 380 tons of explosives being used on roadside bombs is an enormous error, particularly when the Bush administration had been warned by the Atomic Energy Commission.
Keyes has suggested that somehow I'm na‹ve to question how we've gone about this war in Iraq. It strikes me that the Bush administration has been na‹ve throughout. It was na‹ve to think that we'd be greeted as liberators in Iraq. It's been na‹ve in
thinking that somehow this would actually diminish recruitment for terrorism. In fact, it's accelerated it. It's been na‹ve with respect to how difficult it's gonna be to secure the peace, and our troops and our taxpayers are suffering from those errors.
If a driver of a car, your car, drives it into a ditch, there are only so many ways to pull it out. And so, Kerry is going to be doing many similar things to what Bush is doing in terms of making sure that we do the best we can in Iraq. That doesn't mean
we don't fire the driver, and it doesn't mean that we don't examine carefully what lead us to be in this ditch in the first place. It was a bad strategic blunder-and that's not simply my estimation. That's the estimation of a number of Republicans.
Source: IL Senate Debate, Illinois Radio Network
Oct 12, 2004
We must make sure that Iraq is stable having gone in there
Q: You're in favor of keeping troops in Iraq. How long?
A: The War on Terror has to be vigorously fought. Where we part company is how to fight it, because Afghanistan in fact was not a preemptive war, it was a war launched directly against those who
were responsible for 9/11. Iraq was a preemptive war based on faulty evidence-and I say that not in hindsight, or Monday-morning quarterbacking. Six months before the war was launched, I questioned the evidence that would lead to us being there. Now, us
having gone in there, we have a deep national security interest in making certain that Iraq is stable. If not, not only are we going to have a humanitarian crisis, we are also going to have a huge national security problem on our hands-because,
ironically, it has become a hotbed of terrorists as a consequence, in part, of our incursion there. In terms of timetable, I'm not somebody who can say with certainty that a year from now or six months from now we're going to be able to pull down troops.
Advance the training speed and get the reconstruction moving
We have to do three things in Iraq.
We have to advance the speed with which we are training Iraqi troops and security forces so that they can stabilize the country, and that's going to require our help.
But it's also going to require the help
of the international community, which is why we have to internationalize this process. I'm under no illusions that the Germans and the French are going to be sending troops in any time soon, but we can get them to put more resources into the training and
infrastructure required to secure the Iraqi borders and the Iraqi streets.
Finally, it's important that we get our reconstruction moving. The reconstruction process that has taken place has been completely inept. And that's not simply my estimation,
that's the estimation of the two ranking Republican Senators on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who issued a blistering attack on the Bush administration. Highly unusual and it indicates how badly botched this job has been.
Democratizing Iraq will be more difficult than Afghanistan
Q: Afghanistan has just conducted the first elections in its 5,000-year history. They appear to have gone very well-at least, up to this point. Is that not a hopeful sign for Iraq, and for the elections that we may be seeing there in January?
A: It is
an absolutely hopeful sign for the people of Afghanistan. As I have stated unequivocally, I have always thought that we did the right thing in Afghanistan. My only concerns with respect to Afghanistan was that we diverted our attention from Afghanistan
in terms of moving into Iraq, and I think would could have done a better job of stabilizing that country than we have in providing assistance to the Afghani people. All of us should be rooting for the Afghani people & making sure that we are providing
them the support to make things happen. With respect to Iraq, it's going to be a tougher play. I don't think any of us should be rooting for failure in Iraq at this point. This is no longer Bush's war, this is our war, and we all have a stake in it.
I thought of families I'd met struggling to get by without a loved one's full income, or whose loved ones had returned with a limb missing or nerves shattered, but who still lacked long-term health benefits because they were reservists. We have a solemn
obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war & secure the peace.
Source: Keynote speech to the Democratic National Convention
Jul 29, 2004
Set a new tone to internationalize the Iraqi reconstruction
Many families have got reservists, National Guardsmen, the sons, daughters, uncles, and aunts of people who are in Iraq for 18 months. They don't see an exit strategy. They're deeply troubled about how we got into the war. Kerry is going to have to offer
the ability for his administration to be able to set a new tone, re-establish the kinds of relationships with our allies that allow us to internationalize the reconstruction process, make sure that Iraq succeeds and allow our troops eventually to get out
Source: Meet The Press, NBC News
Jul 25, 2004
Iraq war was sincere but misguided, ideologically driven
The war in Iraq was an ideologically driven war. I think Bush was sincere and is sincere about his desire to maintain a strong America, but there was a single-mindedness to this process that has led our country into a very difficult position.
It's a consequence of that single-mindedness that we did not create the kind of international framework that would have allowed success once we decided to go in. I think that this administration is sincere but I think it's misguided.
Source: Meet The Press, NBC News
Jul 25, 2004
Not opposed to all wars, but opposed to the war in Iraq
Obama has been very forthright in his opposition to the war. He spoke in an anti-war rally in October 2002. Very well attended, very large rally, and he said some powerful words that were strongly against the war.
I think he gained a lot of supporters from that particular speech. He was so clear in his opposition and yet not in any way negative. He didn't use the traditional kind of code words that people who oppose the war were using.
He did it in a way that attracted people who normally would be gung ho for military action . He said he wasn't against all wars and he went against much of what was being said on the podium,
but he did it in such a considerate and intelligent way that even those who wanted more raw meat were satisfied with his speech. In fact, most were captivated by the way he presented himself.
Source: Salim Muwakkil and Amy Goodman, Democracy Now
Jul 15, 2004
International voice in Iraq in exchange for debt forgiveness
[We should] confront the challenge of returning sovereignty to the Iraqi people. We must leave behind a government that has enough legitimacy and political support from all three factions-the Kurds, Sunnis and Shia-to survive on its own.
The best path to that is through free and fair elections and a constitution that preserves minority rights. For these elections to take place next year, as scheduled, there must be sufficient security in the country and, therefore,
we must maintain a strong military presence while encouraging the interim government to hold elections as soon as possible. We must also encourage international involvement in this process by giving them a meaningful voice and role
in Iraqi affairs and fair access to multi-billion dollar reconstruction contracts. In return, they must forgive Saddam's multi-billion dollar debts to their countries and help pay the reconstruction costs.
Source: Press Release, "Renewal of American Leadership "
Jul 12, 2004
Barack Obama on Trouble Spots
Two-state solution: Israel & Palestine side-by-side in peace
Renewing American Diplomacy: Obama will talk to our foes as well as our friends, and he will restore American leadership and alliances abroad.
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama will make progress on the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority. He will make a sustained push--working with Israelis and Palestinians--to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security.
Source: Campaign booklet, "Blueprint for Change", p. 50-55
Feb 2, 2008
Al Qaida is based in northwest Pakistan; strike if needed
Q: You said back in August you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after it, whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Do you stand by that?
A: I absolutely do stand by it. We should do everything in our power
to push and cooperate with the Pakistani government in taking on Al Qaida, which is now based in northwest Pakistan. And what we know from our national intelligence estimates is that Al Qaida is stronger now than at any time since 2001. And so, back in
August, I said we should work with the Pakistani government, first of all to encourage democracy in Pakistan so you've got a legitimate government, and secondly that we have to press them to do more to take on Al Qaida in their territory; and if they
could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike. The two heads of the 9/11 Commission a few months later wrote an editorial saying the exact same thing. I think it's indisputable that that should be our course.
No action against Iran without Congressional authorization
Q: In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?
A: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack
in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.
History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that "any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress."
Iran: Bush does not let facts get in the way of ideology
Q: Do you agree with the president's assessment that Iran still poses a threat?
A: It is absolutely clear that Pres. Bush continues to not let facts get in the way of his ideology. And that's been the problem with the administration's foreign policy
generally. It is important for the president to lead diplomatic efforts, to try to offer to Iran the prospect of joining the World Trade Organization, potential normalized relations over time, in exchange for changes in behavior.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate
Dec 13, 2007
Meet directly for diplomacy with the leadership in Iran
Q: In March you voted for a Senate resolution that said: "The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization." But you contend that the language in the Sep. 26 2007 resolution is 'saber-rattling',
because it said it is the "critical national interest of the US" to stop Iran from creating a Hezbollah-like force in Iraq.
A: Look, there's a broader issue at stake here, and that is how do we approach Iran? I have said, unlike Senator Clinton, that
I would meet directly with the leadership in Iran. I believe that we have not exhausted the diplomatic efforts that could be required to resolve some of these problems--them developing nuclear weapons, them supporting terrorist organizations like
Hezbollah and Hamas. That does not mean that we take other options off the table, but it means that we move forward aggressively with a dialogue with them about not only the sticks that we're willing to apply, but also the carrots.
Q: Would you pledge that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are president?
A: We are committed to Iran not having nuclear weapons. We have been governed by fear for the last 6 years. Bush has used the fear of terrorism to launch a war that
should have never been authorized. We are seeing the same pattern now. It is very important for us to draw a clear line and say, "We are not going to be governed by fear. We will take threats seriously and take action to make sure that the US is secure."
Source: 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University
Oct 30, 2007
Iran military resolution sends the region a wrong signal
That is a continuation of the kinds of foreign policy that rejects diplomacy and sees military action as the only tool available to us to influence the region. What we should be doing is reaching out aggressively to our allies, talking to our enemies and
focusing on those areas where we do not accept their actions, whether it be terrorism or developing nuclear weapons, and talking to Iran directly about the potential carrots that we can provide in terms of them being involved in the World Trade
Organization, or beginning to look at the possibilities of diplomatic relations being normalized. We have not made those serious attempts. This kind of resolution does not send the right signal to the region. It doesn't send the right signal to our allie
or our enemies. As a consequence, over the long term, it weakens our capacity to influence Iran. There may come a point where those measures have been exhausted & Iran is on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon, where we have to consider other options
Deal with al Qaeda on Pakistan border, but not with nukes
Q: [to Clinton]: You criticized Sen. Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons against Al Qaida in Pakistan, yet you said the same against Bush's use of tactical nuclear weapons in Iran, saying: "I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the
table." What's the difference there?
CLINTON: I was asked specifically about the Bush-Cheney administration's policy to drum up support for military action against Iran. Combine that with their continuing effort to try to get "bunker-buster" nuclear
bombs that could penetrate into the earth to go after deeply buried nuclear sites. This was not a hypothetical, this was a brushback against this administration which has been reckless and provocative.
Q: Do you accept that distinction?
OBAMA: There
was no difference. It is not hypothetical that Al Qaida has established base camps in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan. No military expert would advise that we use nuclear weapons to deal with them, but we do have to deal with that problem.
Get al Qaeda hiding in hills between Afghanistan & Pakistan
OBAMA: We know right now, according to the National Intelligence Estimate, that al Qaeda is hiding in the hills between Afghanistan & Pakistan. And because we have taken our eye off the ball, they are stronger now than any time since 2001. As president,
I want us to fight on the right battlefield, and what that means is getting out Iraq and refocusing our attention on the war that can be one in Afghanistan. And that also will allow us to free up the kinds of resources that will make us safer here
at home because we'll be able to invest in port security, chemical plant security, all the critical issues that have already been discussed.
DODD: I think it's highly irresponsible to suggest we may be willing unilaterally to invade a nation who we're
trying to get to be more cooperative with us in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
CLINTON: I think it is a very big mistake to telegraph that and to destabilize the Musharraf regime, which is fighting for its life against the Islamic extremists.
Military action in Pakistan if we have actionable intel
Q: [to Dodd]: If we have actionable intelligence on al Qaeda operatives, including bin Laden, [within Pakistan], and President Musharraf cannot act, then we should. Now, I think that's just common sense. For us to authorize [military action in
Iraq] where the people who attacked 3,000 Americans were not present--which you authorized--and then to suggest that somehow we should not focus on the folks that did attack 3,000 Americans, [al Qaeda in Pakistan, makes no sense].
DODD:
It was a mistake to suggest somehow that going in unilaterally here into Pakistan was somehow in our interest. That is dangerous. And I don't retreat from that at all.
OBAMA: I did not say that we would immediately go in unilaterally.
What I said was that we have to work with Musharraf, because the biggest threat to American security right now are in the northwest provinces of Pakistan and that we should continue to give him military aid contingent on him doing something about that.
FactCheck: Yes, Obama said invade Pakistan to get al Qaeda
Sen. Obama rewrote history when he defended his controversial remarks about invading Pakistan if necessary to eliminate al Qaeda, saying, "I did not say that we would immediately go in unilaterally. What I said was that we have to work with [Pakistan's
President Pervez] Musharraf."
That's not exactly what he said. Obama is referring to an Aug. 1 policy address, in which he made no direct mention of working with Musharraf. Instead, he said he would "take out" al Qaeda if Musharraf failed to act.
Obama (Aug. 1): I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again.
It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
Focus on battle in Afghanistan and root out al Qaeda
One of the things that I think is critical, as the next president, is to make absolutely certain that we not only phase out the Iraq but we also focus on the critical battle that we have in Afghanistan and root out al Qaeda.
If we do not do that, then we're going to potentially see another attack here in the US.
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College
Jun 3, 2007
Bush cracked down on some terrorists' financial networks
Bush has cracked down on some of the terrorists' financial networks; I think that is important. They have unfortunately not strengthened our alliances with other countries, and one of the most important things that we're going to have to do to be
successful in rooting out these networks is to make sure that we have the cooperation of other nations. That is not something that we've done, and the effort in Iraq has greatly weakened our efforts there.
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College
Jun 3, 2007
Iraq has distracted us from Taliban in Afghanistan
Afghanistan is an area where we should be focusing. NATO has made real contributions there. Unfortunately, because of the distraction of Iraq, we have not finished the job in terms of making certain that we are driving back the
Taliban, stabilizing the Karzai government, capturing bin Laden and making sure that we've rooted out terrorism in that region.
Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC
Apr 26, 2007
Iran with nuclear weapons is a profound security threat
KUCINICH: You previously said that all options are on the table with respect to Iran. That means you're setting the stage for another war. We're in Iraq for oil. We're looking at attacking Iran for oil.
OBAMA: I think it would be a profound mistake
for us to initiate a war with Iran. But, have no doubt, Iran possessing nuclear weapons will be a major threat to us and to the region. They're in the process of developing it. And I don't think that's disputed by any expert. They are the largest state
sponsor of terrorism, of Hezbollah and Hamas.
KUCINICH: It is disputed.
OBAMA: There is no contradiction between us taking seriously the need, as you do, to want to strengthen our alliances around the world--but I think it is important for
us to also recognize that if we have nuclear proliferators around the world that potentially can place a nuclear weapon into the hands of terrorists, that is a profound security threat for America and one that we have to take seriously.
We are playing to Osama's plan for winning a war from a cave
The struggle against Islamic-based terrorism will be not simply a military campaign but a battle for public opinion in the Islamic world, among our allies & in the US. Osama bin Laden understands that he cannot defeat the US in a conventional war. What h
& his allies can do is inflict enough pain to provoke a reaction of the sort we've seen in Iraq--a botched & ill-advised US military incursion into a Muslim country, which in turn spurs on insurgencies based on religious sentiment & nationalist pride,
which in turn necessitates a lengthy & difficult US occupation. All of this fans anti-American sentiment among Muslims, & increases the pool of potential terrorist recruits.
That's the plan for winning a war from a cave, & so far, we are playing to
script. To change that script, we'll need to make sure that any exercise of American military power helps rather than hinders our broader goals: to incapacitate the destructive potential of terrorist networks and win this global battle of ideas.
Al Qaida is stronger than before thanks to the Bush doctrine
Part of the reason that we neglected Afghanistan, part of the reason that we didn't go after bin Laden as aggressively as we should have is we were distracted by a war of choice. That's the flaw of the Bush doctrine.
It wasn't that he went after those who attacked America. It was that he went after those who didn't. As a consequence, we have been bogged down, paid extraordinary--an extraordinary price in blood and treasure, and we have fanned the anti-
American sentiment that actually makes it more difficult for us to act in Pakistan. It is absolutely true that we have to, as much as possible, get Pakistan's agreement before we act. And that's always going to be the case.
But we have to make sure that we do not hesitate to act when it comes to Al Qaida. Because they are currently stronger than they were at any time since 2001, partly because we took our eye off the ball.
OBAMA: The Bush administration could not find a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. WMD are not found in Iraq. And so, it is absolutely true that we have a network of terrorists, but it takes a huge leap of logic to suddenly suggest that that means
that we invade Iraq. Saudi Arabia has a whole bunch of terrorists, so have Syria and Iran, and all across the globe. To mount full-scale invasions as a consequence is a bad strategy. It makes more sense for us to focus on those terrorists who are active
to try to roll them up where we have evidence that in fact these countries are being used as staging grounds that would potentially cause us eminent harm, and then we go in. The US has to reserve all military options in facing such an imminent threat-
but we have to do it wisely.
KEYES: That's the fallacy, because you did make an argument just then from the wisdom of hindsight, based on conclusions reached now which were not in Bush's hands several months ago when he had to make this decision.
Obama will speak before a Jewish audience and talk about his problems with Israeli policy in a way that inspires trust, rather than the kind of disagreement that you often find when that happens.
Source: Salim Muwakkil and Amy Goodman, Democracy Now
Jul 15, 2004
Engage North Korea in 6-party talks
[We should] address the threat posed by North Korea. By refusing to negotiate with North Korea for three and half years, experts believe that North Korea may now be close to having six to eight nuclear weapons.
We must immediately insist on complete and verifiable elimination of North Korea's nuclear capability, engage in Six-Party bilateral talks, and facilitate a reform agenda that is broader than denuclearization to address humanitarian concerns.
Source: Press Release, "Renewal of American Leadership "
Jul 12, 2004
Use moral authority to work towards Middle East peace
[The US should] use American moral authority and credibility to help achieve Middle East peace. Our first and immutable commitment must be to the security of Israel, our only true ally in the Middle East and the only democracy.
We must be consistent and we must include the EU and the Arab States in pressing for reforms within the Palestinian community.
Source: Press Release, "Renewal of American Leadership "
Jul 12, 2004
Barack Obama on Voting Record
Voted to fund war until 2006; now wants no blank check
Q: Some involved in the anti-movement have said that in 2004, 2005, 2006 Barack Obama voted to fund the war; that you were not a leader in trying to stop the war until you ran for president and had a sense of the anti-war fervor in the Democratic base.
Where was the leadership?
A: I disagree with that. Throughout I was a constant critic. It is true that my preference would not be to end this war simply by cutting off funding. My preference would be for the president to recognize that we needed to
change course, and that was what I continually pushed for. At the point where we realized the president was not willing to change course, I put forward a very clear timetable for when we should remove our troops. And, when that was vetoed, I then
suggested that the only way to negotiate a different direction in Iraq is by not giving Bush a blank check when it comes to funding.
Q: You have changed now in your support of cutting off funding.
A: But I haven't changed in my opposition to the war.
Late to vote against war is not late to oppose war
EDWARDS: Obama voted late for the timetable for withdrawl; a lack of leadership.
OBAMA: I opposed this war from the start. So Edwards is about 4-1/2 years late on leadership on this issue. It's important not to play politics on something that is as
critical and as difficult as this. It is not easy to vote for cutting off funding because the fact is there are troops on the ground. All of us exercise our best judgment, just as we exercised our best judgment to authorize or not authorize this war.
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College
Jun 3, 2007
Spending on the Cold War relics should be for the veterans
Keep in mind that there is a difference between the Pentagon budget and the size of the military. So it may be that, for example, there are weapon systems that are outmoded relics of the Cold War; but what
I want to make certain of is, is that our troops are not going on these repeated tours, lengthy tours, that we are providing them with all the support they need when they're on the ground. And we can't do that currently.
When they come home we are treating them with the dignity and honor that they deserve. Whether you were for the war or against the war, we can all agree to, and the Bush administration has not done that because they tried to do it on the cheap.
Folks who have Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, folks who have disability payments that are due are not getting the kinds of services they deserve. I have some specific plans to address that.
Would have voted no to authorize the President to go to war
I would have voted not to authorize the president to go to war given the facts as I saw them at that time.
But, as I said, I wasn't there and what is absolutely clear as we move forward is that if we don't have a change in tone & a change in administration, I think we're going to have trouble making sure that our troops are secure and that we succeed in Iraq.
Source: Meet The Press, NBC News
Jul 25, 2004
Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008.
Begins the phased redeployment of US forces from Iraq within 120 days of enactment of this joint resolution with the goal of redeploying by March 31, 2008, all US combat forces from Iraq, except for a limited number essential for protecting US and coalition personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations. Such redeployment shall be implemented as part of a diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community in order to bring stability to Iraq.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
Our troops are caught in the midst of a civil war. The administration has begun to escalate this war with 21,000 more troops. This idea is not a new one. During this war, four previous surges have all failed. It is time for a different direction. It is time for a drawdown of our troops.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
This resolution calls for imposing an artificial timeline to withdraw our troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions on the ground or the consequences of defeat; a defeat that will surely be added to what is unfortunately a growing list of American humiliations. This legislation would hobble American commanders in the field and substantially endanger America's strategic objective of a unified federal democratic Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself and be an ally in the war against Islamic fascism. The unintended consequence of this resolution is to bring to reality Osama bin Laden's vision for Iraq; that after 4 years of fighting in Iraq the US Congress loses its will to fight. If we leave Iraq before the job is done, as surely as night follows day, the terrorists will follow us home. Osama bin Laden has openly said: America does not have the stomach to stay in the fight. He is a fanatic. He is an Islamic fascist. He is determined to destroy us and our way of life.
Reference: US Policy in Iraq Resolution;
Bill S.J.Res.9
; vote number 2007-075
on Mar 15, 2007
Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007.
Voting YEA on this amendment would establish a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Voting NAY would keep the current situation without a timetable. The amendment states:
The President shall redeploy, commencing in 2006, US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces and conducting specialized counterterrorism operations.
The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.
Within 30 days, the administration shall submit to Congress a report that sets forth the strategy for the redeployment of US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007.
Opponents of the Resolution say:
This amendment would withdraw American forces from Iraq without regard to the real conditions on the ground.
The consequences of an American retreat would be terrible for the security of the
American people at home.
Our commitment is not open-ended. It is conditional on the Iraqis moving toward self-government and self-defense.
Supporters of the Resolution say:
Congress talks almost incessantly about the situation in Iraq as if on 9/11 the situation involved Iraq. Of course, it didn't. We were attacked by al-Qaida operating out of Afghanistan on 9/11.
One of the theories we hear is that somehow staying in Iraq is necessary because all the terrorists will come into Iraq, and then they wouldn't be able to attack us anywhere else. Some call this the roach-motel theory. The fact is, al-Qaida is operating in 60 to 80 countries. Yet our resources are only heavily focused on this Iraq situation.
In terms of differences from other Iraq amendments: This is binding, not just a sense of the Senate.
Secondly, we have a date; other amendments are open-ended.
Thirdly, this has an over-the-horizon force specifically to protect our security interests.
Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan.
To establish a special committee of the Senate to investigate the awarding and carrying out of contracts to conduct activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and to fight the war on terrorism. Voting YES would: create Senate special committee to investigate war contracts, taking into consideration: bidding, methods of contracting, subcontracting, oversight procedures, allegations of wasteful practices, accountability and lessons learned in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Reference: Committee to Investigate War Contracts;
Bill S Amdt 2476 to S 1042
; vote number 2005-316
on Nov 10, 2005
