Obama/Clinton Kerfuffle Continues
By Dyre42 | Related entries in 2008 ElectionIn Obama’s latest attempt to refute Clinton’s claims about his inexperience he espoused his plan for the war on terror:
“When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
I introduced a plan in January that would have already started bringing our troops out of Iraq, with a goal of removing all combat brigades by March 31, 2008. If the President continues to veto this plan, then ending this war will be my first priority when I take office.
There is no military solution in Iraq. Only Iraq’s leaders can settle the grievances at the heart of Iraq’s civil war. We must apply pressure on them to act, and our best leverage is reducing our troop presence. And we must also do the hard and sustained diplomatic work in the region on behalf of peace and stability.
In ending the war, we must act with more wisdom than we started it. That is why my plan would maintain sufficient forces in the region to target al Qaeda within Iraq. But we must recognize that al Qaeda is not the primary source of violence in Iraq, and has little support — not from Shia and Kurds who al Qaeda has targeted, or Sunni tribes hostile to foreigners. On the contrary, al Qaeda’s appeal within Iraq is enhanced by our troop presence.
Ending the war will help isolate al Qaeda and give Iraqis the incentive and opportunity to take them out. It will also allow us to direct badly needed resources to Afghanistan. Our troops have fought valiantly there, but Iraq has deprived them of the support they needâ€â€and deserve. As a result, parts of Afghanistan are falling into the hands of the Taliban, and a mix of terrorism, drugs, and corruption threatens to overwhelm the country.” full speech
Not too shabby. Again as long as the diplomacy starts many moons before the withdraw I could get behind that. I think Clinton made a miscalculation in choosing to point out Obama’s ” inexperience. All Obama has to do is show that he has a decent plan/vision and would be capable of implementing it for your average voter to give Obama a pass on his lack of time inside the beltway. Ultimately that’s all he really needs to do to keep his foot in the door and his name on the primary ballot.
This entry was posted on Thursday, August 2nd, 2007 and is filed under 2008 Election. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:43 am
Wow, you actually think that an invasion of Pakistan will go smoother than the occupation of Iraq? Will Obama seek a UN resolution? What if Musharraf says no? Will he do it anyway? Will Obama gather a grand coalition to invade and occupy the mountainous regions of Waziristan?
But for some reason this standard will not apply to western Pakistan, where Al-qaeda originated.
Ah, “The war on terror = the war on the Al-qaeda organization only” meme. What if Osama bin Laden turns up dead – Is the “global war on terror,” as Obama calls it, over?
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:58 am
I think you’re right about Clinton biting off a bit more than she can chew on this. She wanted to make the focus of the debate Obama’s inexperience, but the way Obama has controlled this scuffle voters may only remember Obama would put diplomacy first while Clinton won’t commit to a meeting. She may have given the answer that would please the politically savvy, but I don’t think the masses are going to dock Obama any points for not specifically mentioning the possibility a visit from The President could be used for propaganda.
Clinton: they could use you for lulz, n00b!
Obama: OMG really??
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:22 am
Meanwhile Hillary calls the comments “irresponsible”
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-08/02/content_6464661.htm
Yet she agrees with Obama
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/8/2/worldupdates/2007-08-02T023102Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-287732-2&sec=worldupdates
Clinton, in an interview with the American Urban Radio Network, stressed the importance of the Pakistanis “taking the actions that only they can take within their own country.”
But she did not rule out U.S. attacks inside Pakistan, citing the missile attacks her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, ordered against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998.
“If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured,” she said.
So she finds irresponsible something she agrees with?
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:01 am
I am sticking with my prediction from last February:
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:01 pm
I’m with MW. I predict Clinton/Obama in 2008 as well. We should call them the “Demographic Party” because thats how they win elections. It was similar to 2004 when Kerry chose Edwards, another primary frontrunner, because he was a southern populist who could hedge Kerry’s northeastern aristocratic feel. They didn’t even like eachother.
Its also apparent when you consider the Demograph’s ever-changing positions on Iraq. Which voting block does this position appeal to and at what time. Obama says that he will now invade Pakistan because focus groups told his campaign manager that he looked weak on foreign policy during the primary debate with Clinton.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Except for the fact that he never specifically said he’d invade Pakistan. Do you need to invade Pakistan to take out high-value terrorist targets in Pakistan?
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:23 pm
“We’ve got to get on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan…” That sounds rather stern to me, especially considering that sometimes you do need to send in ground forces or special ops to take out high value targets. If Waziristan has become a Taliban/Al-qaeda enclave, the way that half of Afghanistan was before 9/11…then why not invade? that is, if invading Afghanistan was justified.
I could be wrong, maybe Obama has taken invading western Pakistan off the table, I guess we will have to wait until the new Rassmusen/ Gallup approval numbers come out before he clarifies.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
It sounds to me like Obama is not advocating invasion in the sense that we invaded Iraq — going in and expecting to leave when a new and stable government was in place.
Rather he sounds like he is talking about invasion in the sense of go in, smash the problem, depart forthwith — leaving the existing government to sort itself out. Considering that the border area of Pakistan has been effectively ungoverned for ages, it isn’t like there would be much need to stay and try ourselves.
Overall, not anywhere near as foolish as the objectors characterize it.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:34 pm
I’ve stated previously (just not here) that I think Obama will end up as the candidate for VP.