Obama says Iraq trip could refine his policy

Unfortunate he has been caught in the "go to Iraq P.R. checklist." Going to Iraq doesn't make one any better than any other presidential candidate, or anyone else for that matter. Even that idiot michelle malkin went to Iraq which shows that a trained monkey can do so.

FLIP Thanks for the nomination, suckahs. FLOP

I wonder what US troops on the ground make of all these political junkets. You had McCain with his famous marketplace walk a couple of years ago (which was actually a huge stage-managed photo opportunity). Now you have Barack going off to Iraq to boost his supposedly "weak" foreign policy creditials and "redifine" his policies. What a crock!

If these "leaders" really want to show that they care about the Iraqis and the US troops, etc., instead of grand-standing to the Washington press corps, they should do an extended tour of Iraq (a couple of months at least). Visit the hospitals with the maimed children, go on patrol with the US troops who stand around on street corners acting as targets for every mullah with a gun. Visit the civilians whose lives have been destroyed and whose houses are raided on a regular basis, either by troops looking for insurgents, or by insurgents looking for collaborators. Experience the shooting war at first hand instead of doing photo opts behind a massive security shield. After doing some or all of the above, then you can start talking about what can be done to address the quagmire that the current US administration and its Iraqi lickspittles have created.

Obama's Iraq policy is the single greatest obstacle to my voting for him; If "flip-flopping" will result in a more realistic strategy, rather than the current "cut and run", then by all means, flop away!

flip-flop?

What a load of garbage. Obviously you'd rather have someone stubbornly lead your country down the drain rather than admit that a change is required! Takes a forward thinking, rational person to admit a mistake.

All you flip-flop chanting fools expect perfection and end up with George Bush instead. Congratulations. You don't want whats good for your country only what is good for your political affiliation. I guess you get what you deserve.

"we are spending $10 to $12 billion a month in Iraq that we desperately need here at home, not to mention the strains on our military,” Obama said."

That pretty much says it all in my book.

How can real Americans argue that it is better for their taxpayer dollars to be spend abroard than at home?

Triumvere - it's not 'cut and run' at all. What would you rather have an American president do - stay longer and burn up $15-20 billion of your nation's money each month...for what?

Would you rather U.S. taxpayer money is used to build bridges, schools, hospitals, offices, etc. in Iraq or in America????

That's apparently what Sen. McCain wants to do.

It's just disturbing that Sen. McCain sees no clear goal posts, ha very little idea of the economic impact of his own Iraq plan, and that he thinks 'stay the course Iraq' is actually a sensible strategy.

Americans deserve far more than that.

Are you interested in electing a president who actually puts Americans first or who continues to put Iraqis first and makes Americans pay for it?

It is about time America finally go its act together on Iraq.

For those who agree with pull out of Iraq, does that mean you are in agreement the US should pull out of all other countries too.. South Korea, Japan, Germany, ETC.. You cant complain about troops in just one country, it cost allot to keep troops in any country. I for one belive the US should remove all troops from other countries and take care of the US... Why should the US protect and support all the other countries when they dont even have health care for all their people...... President= Puppet no political person does anything that isnt wanted by the companies who lobby them, Money buys laws not the people.... Anyone who thinks other wise is just foolish....

Obama, Mccain, PEEWEE Herman it doesnt matter who is in office, goverment will not pull out of other countries due to the large amount of money comapanies make in conflict... Historicly war has been the driving force in the US economy and no president is going to piss off the companies that pay him to get into office.

I've always said that the President will only be able to do what the situation in Iraq allows him to do. If it's stable then US troops will be able to come home. It's good for Obama to revise his position now than hold on to something that he can't deliver on. He'll take a hit for it, but he surely can't make a promise to start pulling troops out on Day 1 if it leads to a worsening of the situation. He needs options and it looks like he's positioning himself to have those options in the future. It's a much more rational position and I wish he would have taken it sooner. But later is better than never.

Are you interested in electing a president who actually puts Americans first or who continues to put Iraqis first and makes Americans pay for it?

Um, Sushi, Obama is talking about revising his position, which will most likely include backing away from earlier promises of an immediate withdrawal. Are you sure you want to keep hammering the position that anyone who does that is anti-American and doesn't care about the troops? Pretty soon you'll be telling us that you're more of a patriotic American than both McCain and Obama. ;)

USA! USA! USA!

From obama's own website:

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.

Seems he has flip-flopped. Heh, looks like all his supporters have been thrown under the bus.

democrat Lemming Day will soon be upon us.

RR

the US cannot pull out of Iraq. Never. Too much is invested in that black gold but not just that. Its about the global default currency being USD. in 2001 Iraq switched to Euros, followed by Iran and North Korea. Suddenly Iraq gets pounded and Iran plus the DPRK get sanctioned and assets frozen plus dubbed the axis of evil. Can you imagine what would happen to the US if the whole Middle East switched to Euros?? bye bye Miss American pie.

Superlib - "I've always said that the President will only be able to do what the situation in Iraq allows him to do. If it's stable then US troops will be able to come home."

You really believe that? If so, you might like to explain how the 6 superbases the U.S. is building not to mention the world's largest U.S. embassy that is going up in Baghdad fit into your picture of bringing U.S. troops home.

Romeo - "Seems he has flip-flopped. Heh, looks like all his supporters have been thrown under the bus.2

Heh, you've been being dragged under the bus since March 2003.

Only a few more months before the Republicans party begins its long deserved implosion.

Romulus - "the US cannot pull out of Iraq. Never."

I don't agree. If you've been reading the news recently, U.S. basic infrastructure is crumbling - levees, bridges, highways, you name it - analysts are talking at the need for a $1 trillion + overhaul of basic U.S. infrastructure.

Staying invested in Iraq is not going to achieve this.

I'm just wondering when Americans are going to vote for a president who actually puts Americans first instead of putting Iraqis first and making Americans pay for it?

Sen. McCain is not that man.

Obama on the other hand actually wants to get America out of Iraq and, you know, spend more tax dollars on America and Americans.

Meanwhile, individals like romeoramen think that's something worth bashing...

Obama: "I would always reserve the right to do what's best"

And if what's best is to have U.S. troops in Iraq for 5 or even 10 more years, Obama will have to break his biggest promise - to bring all the troops home in 16 months.

Sushi - USA! USA! USA!

Sushisake3 If you compare the general condition of road and infrastructure of all the nations of the world you will see the same problem in all of them.. They dont maintain them and they are falling apart, and if your from Japan then all you need to do is walk around any where to see roads and bridges in horrid condition. Repainting isnt fixing... Analysts I can find any number of analysts with any information you want to hear... I have heard analysts that said english, spanish, and Chinese would be the main language in the world by 2010 and Japanese would be lost by 2015.. Is that going to happen... this comment is funny as all get up.... "Obama on the other hand actually wants to get America out of Iraq and, you know, spend more tax dollars on America and Americans." Umm its an election he would tell you anything you want to get elected just like all the other ones....No one can promise anything as a president because they have no true power..... Simple as that if you belive what those trying to get elected say then I have a bridge in New York to sell you...

"Obama on the other hand actually wants to get America out of Iraq and, you know, spend more tax dollars on America and Americans."

What he wants is to get elected.

As much as I dislike and distrust the post-McGovern Democrats and New Left products like Obama there are times when I think that as was the case with making welfare reform a reality, actually winning in the Iraq arena of the War on Terror quite likely can't be accomplished unless "liberals" can believe - can come to feel - they were the reason we eventually succeeded. (Yes, it's an odd comparison, since the stakes are vastly higher after 9-11.) So I could easily see Obama a month or two after the MSM ensures his election making noises to the effect that it wasn't the surge, or Gen. Petraeus, or the bravery of US troops, or the Anbar Awakening, but his nomination and then election victory which turned the tide in the region. And of course all the little Kos kiddies are invited to bask in the glorious sun of this new day that they and their Obamessiah made possible.

Heh, the far left has only one issue -- Iraq -- and now their hero bamboozled them and thrown them under the bus.

RR

Sushi:

You really believe that?

Well of course I really believe it. If Iraq is stable the US troops can leave. If it's unstable or politically insolvent then the US should stay until those problems are taken care of. What's so odd about that? I think most people are coming around to that reality, including Obama. I'm thankful for that because that was really the only issue I didn't agree with him on.

You can talk about levees all you want. But I'd recommend that you start softening your position because Obama might not be standing so close to you in the future on this issue. Then you'll be like, "Dude, Obama doesn't care about Americans and he hates the troops and is anti-infrastructure. USA!"

RedMeat - "So I could easily see Obama a month or two after the MSM ensures his election making noises to the effect that it wasn't the surge, or Gen. Petraeus, or the bravery of US troops, or the Anbar Awakening, but his nomination and then election victory which turned the tide in the region. And of course all the little Kos kiddies are invited to bask in the glorious sun of this new day that they and their Obamessiah made possible."

Geez, I'm glad you're not in command of anything mechanical. :-)

SuperLib, it seems like you still think it's a better strategy for your and your family's tax dollars to be spent on Iraq and Iraqis.

Heck, all these years I've thought you were American who had your country at heart.

<strong>Moderator: Never mind trying to guess where other posters are from. It is irrelevant.</strong>

Sushi - We're winning this war without your support.

Obama's 16 months to return US military gives him a lot of wiggle room. No candidate has so far been willing or able to bring the only available peace plan.

Radical Islamists (Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.) want God to rule the nations. If the US wanted that, we could sit together to correct our understanding of God's word.

Radical Islamists hate the west (US, Britain) because we do not fight indecency in our society, they do. Note: under Taliban there was no opium production. God's law is strict (but no amputations), but it is a protection to keep others from following the way destructive to society. Many people in the world dress modestly, godly and hold their integrity in a distinguished way. The people of the west are immodest in dress and attitude... media and conversations are often openly of sexual activity. Abortion, adultery, theft, rebellion and dishonor to parents are common behavior in the west. God wants us to REPENT, and be saved, and so do the radical Islamists.

Tell your favorite candidate you want a godly government. It would only take a clarifying statement in the US Constitution that we were formed a Republic to be run with godly principles, the word of God. This will stop Islamic rebellion against the west. All nations who are looking for a constitution can adopt the US model since it is simple and easy to understand and to implement. That is an effective and sustainable foreign policy to end the wars.

"Refine" is the operative word here. We’re about to enter phase two of the Iraq War. Little notice has been paid to the recent no-bid contracts that were awarded by the Iraqi Foreign Ministry to American oil conglomerates. (Incidentally, no-bid contracts are not a sign of either accountable government or good value for public money, but we all know that by now.) As Alan Greenspan noted in his memoirs The Age of Turbulence last year, “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq War was largely about oil.”

While some war boosters predicted in early 2003 that prices would fall to USD 20 a barrel, in fact it took 5 years to get Iraqi oil up to pre-invasion output levels. Given our dependence on oil, something the current administration has done nothing to lessen, the protection of overseas oil supplies has become a matter of “national security.” (One only need to look at the post-Cold War resurgence of Russia to see how control of energy resources determines a country ranking on a power index.) The U.S. is now spending increasing sums for imported oil and whoever is elected must give this situation the highest priority.

Will turning on the spicket in Iraq lower prices? Well, the news of the contracts did nothing to lower the price as the market would predict, namely that speculators would respond to a future increase in supply by putting their money elsewhere. It’s unlikely this deal can stave off more hardship for the foreseeable future; the 5.5 year conflict contributed to the massive U.S. plunge into debt and the fall of the greenback, in turn raising prices to their current levels (which are expected to continue climbing).

Anyway, protecting the oil fields will play a role in the strategic calculations of the candidates with respect to Iraq. This is certainly part of the security agreement currently under negotiation.

Obama:"... careful about how we get out","...reserve the right to do what's best","..keeps some troops in Iraq to fight AQ"...this can only mean one thing that America will NEVER leave Iraq ,that also means America under Obama's leadership(if anf when) has responsible foreign policy.I think he will do things much smarter and I wish him best of luck .

Obama says Iraq trip could refine his policy

barack obama: A man who, heh, says what he means and means what he says.

RR

I wonder how long the US will be in Kosovo. . . . It goes to show that a Democrat can invade a foreign country without UN approval, occupy it indefinitely and the media will give him a pass. But if a Republican ousts a dangerous thug like Saddam Hussein, brings him to trial and converts Iraq from a fear-based autocracy to a fledging democracy, the cowardly media will crucify him.

Everyone can see that things are pretty much winding up in Iraq. Whether it's Obama or McCain, troops will probably start coming home in about the same amount of time. But whatever that length of time, a Republican will be seen as prolonging the agony for personal gain and a Democrat will be seen as a long-awaited bringer of peace.

It's amazing to me that liberal fundamentalists are calling Obama a flip-flopper for wanting to get a good look at the problem.

Actually, it doesn't amaze me at all. It's consistent with the nature of fundamentalism.

As for the oil problem . . . why is American media completely ignoring Honda's hydrogen fuel cell technology? Embarrassment, racism or fear of real change?

Oh, and when will the US get out of Japan?

It's amazing to me that liberal fundamentalists are calling Obama a flip-flopper for wanting to get a good look at the problem.

It's amazing to me that you identify "redmeatkoolaid" and "Romeo Ramen" as liberals! By contrast this is what someone who appears to be of a more liberal bent has posted:

If "flip-flopping" will result in a more realistic strategy, rather than the current "cut and run", then by all means, flop away!

Looking like the 'anti-war' Left is bogged down in a quagmire. I reckon Obama think you all a bunch of Monicas.

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war was largely about oil."

"The quote ran round the world. Blood for oil--it seemed as if Greenspan was lining up with ANSWER and Michael Moore. In an interview with Bob Woodward, Greenspan tacked a bit: Ensuring the stability of oil supplies was "not the administration's motive" for the Iraq War, but it "would have been my motive." "Taking Saddam out," he added, "was essential." In Greenspan's defense, protecting the world's most important product from a megalomaniac is reason enough to fight. But there were others, repeatedly stressed by the president and Congress, including Saddam's fondness for tyranny, terrorists, and WMD. Meanwhile, we are saddened to acknowledge what everyone should know: Iraq coverage is largely about spin."

from Nat'l Review Oct 8 2007

SuperLib, it seems like you still think it's a better strategy for your and your family's tax dollars to be spent on Iraq and Iraqis.

But why spend time saying things you don't really believe? I've stated my position twice in simple language. The door is open for your comments. Why not sit down and have a rational conversation?

"But why spend time saying things you don't really believe? I've stated my position twice in simple language. The door is open for your comments. Why not sit down and have a rational conversation?"

Why do you still not understand?

"Taking Saddam out," he added, "was essential."

Yeah it was and he was a terrible guy. But that doesn't change the fact that almost every action the US has taken in the oil-rich ME since way back when from propping up autocrats (Shah) or more recently implanting democracy, fighting terrorism or preventing the USSR from gaining a foothold there (overthrowing Mossadeq), or, here, toppling Saddam's Baathist regime had the potential to affect the availability of oil for our own ever-expanding needs and thus entailed some calculation about it.

When oil was offered as a motivation for Operation Iraqi Freedom it was always shot down on the grounds, "Look how high the price of gas is!" That simply means things didn't go according to plan and is not evidence there was no plan. Of course energy security is a legitimate national security concern. But had it been offered as such the question would have been raised as to whether this was the way to go about it, namely do we need to militarize control of imported energy? The answer may, upon reflection, be yes; others are doing it such as the Chinese in Sudan.

If you plotted oil price increases on a graph the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran would stand out as a spike. But it didn't prove to be so disastrous because the Saudis, and others, increased production to offset the loss from Iran. This time we're looking at a steady rise with no end in sight. Anyone who lives in a snow-belt state knows how many people, particularly elderly on fixed incomes, have had to apply for public assistance to pay their winter heating bills.

The election and cold weather will be coming together and what plans the candidates have, and how Iraq figures into it, will play a prominent role. None of the options are particularly attractive. It has been suggested, for example, that the only way to jolt speculators back to reality is to publicly take the option of bombing Iran off the table. I hope the next administration has the leeway to take a fresh approach from the one pursued by the GWB administration with such disastrous results.

here is the top ten countries the US gets its oil from

Canada Mexico Saudi Arabia Venezuela Nigeria Angola Iraq Algeria United Kingdom Brazil here is the official numbers of oil from all arab countries imported to the US Totals: all imported 1,814,134 amount from Arab countries (middle east 385,221 Total percent of oil imports from Middle east 21% On top of this 40% of all crude oil used in the US is from the US

According to the people saying we invade for Oil Canada and Mexico better get its army ready cause here comes the states

Guys dont make excuses for a man who ignored the UN and attacked all other countries around it at some time in the last 20 years, killed his own people by the 100 thousands and would if he could attack and kill anyone in his way... Luckly he is now dead

Just because you dont like the policy of Bush attacking Iraq doesnt mean attacking Iraq was wrong... If the UN had a set then we wouldnt have to police the world so much.. Or maybe some of the so called industrial countries would get off their high thrones and stop some of the countries close to them from killing woman and children.. Its a lot closer for Europe to go to those countries then the US, but they just sit back and sell them weapons, and as we have seen buy the oil even though it was sanctioned by the UN....

As far as Iran they were the ones who pioneered Terriosim and hijacking planes and if they do get the ability to make and use nukes they will... They have stated that the Jews should all die and that reminds me so much of Germany that it makes me sick that we have let that happen again.

Once again the people who think a president makes a differance are living high on something... Show me one president who has stopped hunger, war, child abuse, or any other important item.....

Cant worry about important things when you have an aide under your desk, or trying to hide the fact you didnt do your time in the guard, or what ever they are doing instead of the job of representing and looking out for America and Americans

Michael Klare, author of the recent book Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy is on the Left. But that in an of itself is not enough to dismiss his arguments. How else to explain Africom for example? The Chinese are all over Africa. They are really our strategic competitors; the Russians are sitting pretty since the Soviet-era pipeline infrastructure gives them control of energy resources, particularly natural gas reserves, outside their present-day borders.

As we approach the 2008 elections, two paths lie before us. One leads to greater reliance on imported fuels, increased militarization of our foreign fuel dependency and prolonged struggle with other powers for control over the world's remaining supplies of fossil fuels. The other leads toward diminished reliance on petroleum as a main source of our fuel, the rapid development of energy alternatives, a reduced US military profile abroad and cooperation with China in the development of innovative energy options. Rarely has a policy choice been as stark or as momentous for the future of our country.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080519/klare

I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis.

George W. Bush

How many Iraqis have died as the result of the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of their country remains an unresolved question in the anti-war movement. It is a question the pro-war camp avoids. Yet what more important question is there?

http://www.truthout.org/article/dahr-jamail-and-jeff-pflueger-learning-count

"Yet what more important question is there?"

How about "How many more children would have starved to death in an Iraq being run into the ground by Saddam and U.N. sanctions if Iraq hadn't been liberated?

Nah...

From Websters (not some opinion based web site that all the political idiots use to explain thier side like http://www.truthout.org)

Main Entry: 1war

Pronunciation: ˈwȯr

Function: noun

Usage: often attributive

Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of

Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High

German werran to confuse

Date: 12th century

1 a (1): a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2): a period of such armed conflict (3): state of war b: the art or science of warfare c (1)obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2)archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war 2 a: a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b: a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease> c: variance, odds 3

Now where in the definition of war does it say a peacful non violent act that makes people hug love and kiss each other..

War is a killing and that has to happen in order to bring peace...

I am not pro war at all, but I do understand that if you just sit back and say gosh this is horrible I wish they would stop killing their own people, nothing will stop. You have to be realistic in life and not live in the fantasy world you create in you mind. You will not see peace on earth in your life time nor in your grandchildrens life time. Even if everyone in the world wanted peace someone will end of killing/hurting/fighting/starting war over something as it is human nature to have conflict. So world peace is a pipe dream that those with limited minds think will happen. The best we can do is have a strong arm (like a real UN army) that can keep the peace, but that wont happen either as all countries are in the game for themselves.

Once again all you anti war people please list any goverment that hasnt started a war, aided others in war, or has terrorism coming from their borders. When you can show the world that your country is the golden ticket of anti war then please feel free to voice about how bad the US is for taking out a murdering goverment and spending billions of dollars building a better place.

I hope the US pulls out from all countries in the future, I thing all the people in those countries should defend their own countries instead of us protecting them, but I just dont see countries like Japan spending the trillions of dollars needed to have a real military force when they get it for free.. Why buy the cow if you get the milk for free!!!!!

And to end again with the same truth all the political people dont like to hear... NO POLITICAL person who is elected does anything that isnt supported by the companies and groups paying for them to be in office.. All POLITICAL people in goverment are trying to keep thier jobs so they must satisfy the companies who pay for thier multi million dollar campaigns so they can get re elected.. they are just puppets of corporations....