Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama says one thing, his advisors say something else (370 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm not too good at this stuff (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tbetz, pgm 01

    and it WAS an honest question, so I might've missed something big. But I just visited both of their websites, and under "Barack Obama's Plan," he promises to have combat brigades out of there in 16 months. Sen. Clinton's plan gives no indication regarding how long it may take. She does promise to start the process within 60 days, but while Obama lays out a "best case scenario," she doesn't even do that. It's important to those of us who want this war to end now in the sense that we know what his endgame is.

    Now it may turn out to be implausible, in which case the strategy will obviously need major or minor tweaking. What confuses me is that Sen. Clinton herself has been talking about 1 to 2 brigades per month, but will that be a constant rate? Since that's what Obama's website says, doesn't that mean she's shooting for 16 months also? If so, why doesn't her site say that?

    •  for the reasons Powers stated, We do (0+ / 0-)

      not know the real situation, what it will be like in Jan and how the process of ending the war will go.
      He promises to "end the war in Iraq", which is what all of us want.

      She lays out the cautionary plan taking into consideration how difficult it wil be logistically and  one example the problem of what do we do about the folks that have helped us?

      The Iraqis that have served our troops as translators, etc. She gives a more thoughtful, considered and yes, conservative and centrist view of what the reality is in Iraq, imho.

      Why dp you think all those generals and admirals came out in her support?

      poverty,poverty,poverty...the real enemy the democratic party should be fighting

      by Lisactal on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:46:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Of course, it's important to you ... (0+ / 0-)

      ... and I want to end the war, too.

      What Powers is saying is that you can't really tell now what the situation will be in January of 2009, no matter what's being promised today.  And that's the very reason why Clinton doesn't want to make a promise today.  But Obama does, knowing that he'll have to re-evaluate in January of 2009.

      Does that answer your question?

      Carolyn Kay

      •  Sort of (0+ / 0-)

        But Clinton has said 1 to 2 brigades per month ( So the only difference is that Obama says it can be done in 16 months. I like to hear that. It gets me nervous when a candidate doesn't put any sort of timetable on it, because we've been playing it by ear for 5 years now.

        From what Obama knows right now, he thinks we can be out of there in 16 months. If that plan has to be re-evaluated once he takes office, I trust that the timetable will be adjusted and we'll be told what it is. I don't view it as dishonesty because everyone knows how fluid the situation is. Until I hear a timetable from Clinton, I can't feel 100% sure that she's committed to trying to end this thing the day she takes office.

        I understand your point, it's just a difference of opinion. I need that one extra reassurance - you're better for not needing it. I know ending the war is important to you, I'm sorry if I suggested it isn't.

      •  The difference being that Obama actually read (0+ / 0-)

        the reports and the news and followed the many assertions by diplomats and people trained in statecraft who gave MANY warnings that the bush approach to the Iraq situation was an error.

        Hillary, on the other hand, did NOT read the NIE. She did NOT exercise good judgment in ascertaining the underlying conditions for the bush administration's rush to war.  Hillary did NOT listen to experts from Hans Blix to Kofi Annan to de Villepin and our many diplomats who signed off on that formal letter with their knowledge that this was wrong to proceed against Iraq at that time and in that fashion.

        Hillary does NOT say the same thing that Samantha Power says.

        <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

        by bronte17 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:07:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  How do you know that Obama had read ... (0+ / 0-)

          ... all that?  Link please.

          And if he did, why did he say, in 2004, "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."

          Carolyn Kay

          •  You know, you have to do your research work (0+ / 0-)

            I'm not going to help you any further.

            <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

            by bronte17 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:28:17 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nope, your assertion is disqualified. (0+ / 0-)

              Every assertion I have made, I've provided documentation for.

              You can't be believed unless you provide documentation for what you're saying.

              Carolyn Kay

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site