Quote:
Originally Posted by lookout123
OK, I didn't hear him say he was going to leave troops there forever regardless of peace/war status. I thought it was a pretty general statement making a very good point that we need to quit all the talk about what date can we circle on the calendar for a pull-out and instead focus on what it will take to get us to a situation where our troops aren't being shot at on a daily basis. Maybe that is a complete pull-out, maybe it isn't but I think his point was valid.
If the war is your primary issue then fair enough, but let's acknowledge that we are currently at war. 2 of the 3 candidates voted in favor of authorizing the war. The third candidate stands on his "I was against the war" credentials while ignoring the fact that he was a nobody when the issue was at hand. Let's not pretend that Obama stood in a position of power, saw the same information that the other two did and was the sole shining light of intelligence that was ignored. Pretty much everyone in power bought into the Iraq war to some degree in '02/'03. We're there. Now what? What is the best way to extract ourselves from the mess and leave some possibility for stability after we're gone?
|
There were 26 people in the Senate who voted against the unconstitutional "authorization of force" against Iraq. They were in the same position of power as any other Senator including Senator McCain and Senator Clinton. These 26 people did see the same bogus evidence, and were told the same things as the others, but they had the foresight, intelligence, and judgment to know they were being lied to and to stand up for what was right.
Senator Byrd begged the American people to stop this and said their children would die from it. Sadly, he was right.
The fact is Obama is better with foreign policy than either of the other candidates and he's more able to give a rational and intelligent answer if you call him at 3am.