Obama says a lot of good things that we all want to hear and, it's easy to say them when you don't realize the consequences because of inexperience or ignorance. Obama smart? Maybe. Educated? Hum….. Americans are, or should be, seriously concerned about our near future. I was a young lieutenant in 1975, and through my 24 year career I've seen Viet Nam, Bangla Desh, Cyprus, Grenada and Desert Shield shed more than our share of misery. Yet, the silence and speed at which the USSR fell destroyed millions of livelyhoods. It fell politically, not by conventional warfare. Obama hasn't even lead a small country town. He wasn't even in the boy scouts. He does not understand the right to defend ourselves, he talks like somebody else is going to do it for us. I don't know what he protrays this attitude. Though he's a good man, he's not the best of the choices we have to get us out of the Mess Bush has gotten us into. We should be worried too, for our own decisions. None of us graduated from any great school of mention (if we graduated in the United States). A few colleges maybe, but all of our High Schools are terrible and we are products of these disaterous learning institutions. We cannot affort to have too much confidence in our ability to do the smart thing. After all, it's our families that will suffer. Study closely the candidates. Learn. Stay together. Disagree without becoming desagreeable. Arch

Amanda in Ca.

The intention of Barak Obama is to shift the military effort to areas where the terrorists are actually hiding, while providing clear incentive to the Iraqi political leadership over the course of a year of progressive U.S. withdrawal from Iraq to form a viable working Parliamentary form of Government. Incentive is the thing!
Also, regarding the question of leadership - I do see Barak Obama as
a most fortunate and timely gift for us all. He is courageous, compassionate
yet strong, energetic and committed, creative and charismatic, intelligent and articulate - Is there more that you could ask for as president of the United States? I respectfully submit.

I find it funny how people can say that we are such a mighty and great country… and then in the same breath they say that a step-by-step withdrawl is impossible. How great of a country are we if we can't even get our military and equipment out? Did you see how fast we sent everything in? I sure did.

A fair number of the comments posted here suggest that opposing Barack Obama means one is racist. Those posters would likely also argue that opposing Hillary Clinton means one is sexist. If we're going to have to endure those kinds of nonsensical arguments until election day, I certainly hope the Republican nominee chooses a black woman for his running mate. I will readily vote for any black woman who believes in individual liberty, free market capitalism, a much smaller federal government, and protecting our nation's borders. Show me that person and I'll eagerly vote for her. But don't call me a racist or sexist simply because I think Obama and Clinton would cause this nation to advance further down a tragic collectivist path.

For those of you who are attempting to bring race in to the mix:

I don't think race has been mentioned here by anybody. When Mr. Obama forst announced that he was running for President, I thought "that's nice, he looks like a Presidents and he sounds like a President"… but then he started showing is in-experience as his mouth got bigger and bigger. If you're not qualified… you're not qualified. Thankfully, affirmative action doesn't apply to the Presidency. (I am a minority, so please don't try to lecture me on affirmative action)

BTW. Sorry to inform some of you.. but FREEDOM isn't free. Where do you think we'd be if we would have said "let's end the war now" during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, during WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and Desert Storm… before the job was done? (I just retired from a 20-year career in the military, so please don't try to lecture me on FREEDOM and Patriotism… and neither one means that you are a war-monger)

I would argue that the "job wasn't done" when we stopped during Desert Storm… but the political objective of liberating Kuwait was complete… so the President rightfully called a cease fire. Unfortunately, Saddam continued to threaten Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, so we had to deploy over there constantly to maintain a presence.(I was there as part of 3rd Armored Division… and several times after…so please don't try to lecture me about Desert Storm or the defense of Kuwait).

While Mr. Obama appears to by a fine human being, is green behind the years and is not qualified to the President of th greatest nation on earth… the United States of America. (Again… if you don't think so… you always have the Freedom to leave).

Oh by the way, for those of you who claim that the United States and/or the military has committed "war crimes" in Iraq… then why isn't the United Nations charging us with anything. Hmmmm… could be because none of you understand International Law… and you need to stop reading the leftist blogs out there and find out the facts on your own. Wait a second… how many times has Obama been over there to Iraq? How can a State Senator from Illinois, with no experience, come up with a strategic military plan from a chair in his office here in the United States? Hmmmm… he can't and neither can anybody else… so what he's doing is blowing smoke up everybody's butt. (I spent 20-years in the Army and wouldn't be able to come up with a strategic plan by myself to withdrawal safely and honorably from Iraq without leaving the Iraqis hanging dry to get slaughtered).

Yeah, Mr. Obama, maybe we shouldn't have gone in to Iraq… only time will tell, but we are there now and we have to try and fix it - running away with our tails between our legs is not the right answer.

Isn't this country great?! You can post your views and opinions in a public forum without the "gestapo" coming to get you (a FREEDOM that many countries don't enjoy).

I'm done with this blog.

Thanks,

If Americans fail to elect Obama as POTUS, they can get ready for a draft because we will be facing a world war in the near future. Electing any other person will keep the status quo of the white house which is not good for the future. We need to lead the world again and fight terror wherever it is.Open your eyes people,Terrorists don't care if you are black or white, male or female, rich or poor, red state or blue state. They qualify you with only one criterion, are you American? If your answer is YES then kiss your stubborn head good bye. ONLY Obama can truly unite us please check his record on working with both parties. He is the only one to have an ad with a republican supporter there. Put all your racism, fascism, religiousness, and hatred away. We have enough hate from the world out there so why bother to add more. Elect him not for yourselfs but for the future generation. Posterity will never forgive us if miss this chance.

We will cry forever if we miss this man because of our myopic sense of judgement on who a true leader is. When you have a dream it is because you have hope. You can't lose hope and say you have a dream that is crazy. The hope Obama talks about is the dream for every American because there is no other country like us. USA is a mini WORLD because it is the only country that you find people from every country under the sun aspiring and becoming Americans. GROW UP PEOPLE, FORGET FEMINIST AGENDA, RACIST AGENDA, WHITE OR BLACK AGENDA COS WE ALL HAVE THE SAME PROBLEMS. Now go out there and vote for OBAMA, because as much as you hate to admit it, when you get into that voting box you'll never know what hit you to check Obama's name as your pick (cos u r hoping), don't be scared to hope. I have one word for that, its returning to the American dream of hope for a government OF the people, FOR the people (HEAR THAT!), and BY THE PEOPLE. For those of you who chosed BUSH stop crying and don't blame me you get what you vote for. Now lets see you make the same mistake again come 08. And if you do i hope you all cry blood this time when you let a good man like Obama go.

All good ideas but very naive to think they will work. No way can you pull the troops out so quickly, no way will putting them in a room will make them come to an accord, no way will the surrounding countries take a unbiased stand, no way can we inforce humanitarian disasters without a presence.
As a past Democrat I endorsed the war not because of the WMD but because of the ethnic cleansing that was going on, just like the war in Serbia. Sure the intel was faulty on some of the issues but it was the best at the time. And one pile was bigger than the other. So the question would have been do we wait until they are proven right/wrong or do we act before a disaster happens? The capability was there and the support of terrorists was there, both true statements.
These sound bites from the candidates are just that and have no substance. They are easy to put out but without an exact detail of the plans, they are also easy to change once elected.
For once I would like to see a candidate state that if they do not follow up on their promises within their first two years, they will step down quickly and take their party with them. That will eliminate the rhetoric.
Don't be caught up the race to be the "First" to make history instead of making wise decisions. Unfortunately the former is why I no longer associate with his party.

To Paul in Tampa:
You obviously had the same math teachers as Obama - and have the same problem with being truthful. If you take the 15 months, take the mean average of 5k troops per brigade, and then take the mean average of 1.5 troop redeployments per month - how many troops does that still leave in Iraq (math is 112,500 redeployed) by EOY 2008? Also note that while we can use a mean number like 5k - in truth the brigade numbers are much lower - 4k troops per brigade is a lot closer to the real US military - and then you only get 90k out of Iraq by EOY 2008. My point is that he either doesn't know our military (typical liberal) or wants to "blur" the facts by suggesting that 1-2 brigages per month would get us out by EOY 2008, which sounds easier than the real truth. The fact remains we would need to go at least 2-3 brigades per month to get out of Iraq by EOY 2008. Now when its in its closer to real context - it looks more difficult - and my guess is its even higher number per month that what I have surmised. When libs can't defend themselves or their cohorts - the obvious choice is to stoop to name calling. Just the facts mam - as Joe Friday used to say.

yeah…let's get Syria, Iran, and the rest of the UN together. I'm sure Obama will be able to convice them to support his plan.

This guy is a naive goof-ball. It is incredible that there are people out there who actually believe his "plan", which is nothing more than a Choose to Lose plan.

Obama wins (which won't happen thank god) and we all lose.

Commentary:

"Immediately begin to pull out troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year."
If it is time to pull out or Iraq without completing the task, then I see no reason to pull out two brigades a month. If we are going to tuck our tail between our legs and run, we need to get out now and all at once, or as soon as reasonably possible. I can't imagine being in the last brigade or two left with a scheduled pull out of Iraq. I see no where here any thought as to what the cost is likely to be in pulling out either. I certainly understand the potential of saving as many as 1000 precious American lives in the immediate and short run, but what is the cost in the long run? Heads appear to be buried in the sand on that one.

"Call for a new constitutional convention in Iraq, convened with the United Nations, which would not adjourn until Iraq's leaders reach a new accord or reconciliation."
Well, if we pull out and abandon the people of Iraq, as we left the Shiites and Kurds in the first Gulf war, I think I can safely say we have no business calling for anything in Iraq, or telling them anything about what we think they should do. New constitutional conventions or anything else.

"Use presidential leadership to surge our diplomacy with all of the nations of the region on behalf of a new regional security compact."
What kind of mumbo jumbo is this? So now we are going to come in and talk them to death. Well, from what I have seen from many of our politicians, that just might work. Seems to here anyway, but I really doubt that will work with al Qaeda and Muslim extremists we are dealing with in Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran.

4. "Take immediate steps to confront the humanitarian disaster in Iraq, and to hold accountable any perpetrators of war crimes."

In advanced excerpts of his remarks, Obama, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, says the "bar for success" now in Iraq "is so low that it is almost buried in the sand… We've had enough of a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged."

"I opposed this war from the beginning," Obama says, according to the excerpts. "I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed it in 2003. I opposed it in 2004. I opposed it in 2005. I opposed it in 2006. I introduced a plan in January to remove all of our combat brigades by next March. And I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now."

______________________________________________________________

There were already humanitarian disasters in Iraq while we were already doing nothing about it, which included, but not limited to, inserting people sometimes head first, sometimes feet first into wood chipper and plastic chipper machines while alive. About the only thing needed for these type of disasters is for good men to continue to do nothing, or in this case as proposed, go back to doing nothing again.

We have been holding perpetrators of war crimes accountable. Saddam Heusen and several of his cohorts have hanged, which would certainly not have happened had by standing by talking about it. It would not have happened as Obama is proposing if we were not there. Nor will this likely happen further as we pull out. This suggestion from Obama really seems to be real bunk.

I am glad Obama is against war. I would have to worry about anyone who is for war, and I imagine that most who are for war have never been in the thick of it. But sometimes it is necessary. It should never be entered into lightly. Sometimes just sitting back talking everyone to death, allows a bigger disaster to happen in the long run, as had been happening in Iraq already.

If you don't take the battle to the enemy, the enemy will take the battle to you.

This is true if you are opposed to war or not.

David myspace.com/davidsmyplace

Thank You Senator Obama!
Time to end this war. 3,767 American dead so far, and counting….

Wallace in Chicago,

You wrote, "You don't always have to have guns blazing. Talking to people can work. You've just grown accustomed to this administration's wanton disregard for diplomacy. Stop screaming and work to find a solution."

The international community spent 10 years TALKING to Saddam Hussein (11 UN Resolutions) - was he fully cooperating? No.

Islamic Extremist aren't interested in TALKING. They're interested in KILLING non-muslims (US, Spain, UK, Russia, Phillipines, Israel, etc).

The waking-up happened on 9/11. We SHOULD have woken up with the first attempt of blowing up the twin towers, or when attacked by the USS Cole, or our embassies in Africa.

I sincerely wish you and the Sean Penn's of this country would create a large constituency - and send them over to Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea - and attempt to "talk" to these extremists. Ask them nicely to stop shooting at our soldiers. Ask them nicely to stop strapping bombs on their bodies and walking into Israeli malls, stop cutting off the heads of reporters, christians, and other "infidels".

Wake-up, Wally!

David writes:
"If it is time to pull out or Iraq without completing the task, then I see no reason to pull out two brigades a month. If we are going to tuck our tail between our legs and run, we need to get out now and all at once, or as soon as reasonably possible….Heads appear to be buried in the sand on that one."

There are no heads buried in the sand. Mr. Obama is trying to save American lives and take the focus off of a perceived occupying force. Even the ISG and several senior officials in the Pentagon state we need to decrease the size of our footprint in Iraq.

And BTW, what is the task? The goal posts have been roving (no pun intended) since this conflict began. (WMDs, Regime change, elections, They stand up we stand down) What does "Victory" look like? And through who's optics do we view said Victory? The President's? al-Maliki? Congress? The Pentagon? All the candidates, republican and democrat? Where is Victory and how many of our American sons and daughters have to die or lose limbs, families destroyed, while our leaders struggle for definition of said Victory?

"…I really doubt that will work with al Qaeda and Muslim extremists we are dealing with in Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran."

What Mr. Obama is alluding to is the entire region which also includes Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia. What about our allies in NATO? or even involving Russia and China. We all have a stake in bringing stablility to the region.

We can't bomb or occupy or vacillate or demonize our way to respectability.

I've served this country. We won our war. I want Bin Laden as he was promised by our president. I want al Qaeda and AQI squashed. The strategy has to evolve.

It shouldn't take a tearing of the national fabric (the Constitution) or misleading the American people (from both sides) to make us safe, secure, and serious about regaining our morale footing.

It takes leadership. And I'm waiting.

Vish says:

"The bigotry and racism (typically accompanied by the conservatives), I believe is directly related to the lack of education in rural areas. If you look at a map of the red and blue states you will notice the top universities happen to appear in blue states (coincidence?). With better education we can end this non-sense of racism."

Nice to see you leading the tolerance train by example. Isn't the current president a graduate of one of those blue state schools (coincidence)?

I live in a rural area and take great offense to what you've said. But, you probably don't care that I'm offended (more of that blue state tolerance).

I've lived and worked in big cities (D.C. for awhile), traveled abroad (5 continents) and found far more acceptance in rural areas than in cities the world over. While us hicks may not be as high-falutin' as you city folks, we're generally far nicer to one another and commit far fewer violent crimes against our neighbors. A large number of us own guns, but don't use them against other people as often people at those good universities do (probably 'cause we're so dumb, we probably don't knows hows to operate them).

I generally leave my car and house unlocked because I don't worry about some city fella comin' to take it.

The next time you enjoy an ear of corn or some rice or just about anything you stuff into your pie-hole, thank one the idiot rural folks you are belittling.

'Course, them dumb rural folks got their own place in society, that's to toil away and feed them real smart fellers from the big city.

Sounds sort of like a Caste system to me. With a name like Vish and bein' all blue state smart, you probly knows a bit about the there Caste systems.

One last thing…

I agree with you that Senator Obama's plan is nothing more than a first draft. I commend him for having the unction to at least propose a starting point and lay it out on the table. With the innovative ideas he has brought to bear in this infant primary season and his not too long tenure as a member of the United States Senate, I would expect him to offer it around and attempt to have fellow members of the legilative body get involved to form a consensus. The failure of other candidates to do little but whine about the situation and offer up nothing but complaints points toward future impotence in the position of power they seek. You are also correct in asserting the 'guy from Providence' misunderstood the article, but it is readily apparent that many on this blog have not one iota of rudimental understanding of the English language.

So, on the main thought of the article we are in agreement that at least Senator Obama has been proactive in offering his vision for the next steps in this crisis. What we don't need are people decrying bigotry and racism while committing it themselves, then incorrectly attributing it on a geographical basis. (stereotyping all of us country bumpkins as idiots, of course, I'm guilty of the same with the Caste system/Vish reference but, how does it feel?)

In all honesty, have a good day,

lavelle,

It all sounds good in writing, but there are other factors that play into it all–perhaps you're a bit naive for not considering how his plan can impact other parts of the world as well as other parts of the lives of many Americans. No one's perfect, but before knocking others for questioning his plan, perhaps you should think about what the long-term effects will be.

We all have the right to question certain candidates–that's the beauty of an election in this country. Yet every story on the Ticker about Obama or Hilary, you're there cramming Obama down our throats, which is really starting to hurt your cause. How much is he/his committee paying you?

THIS IS RIDICULOUS> he hasn't even told us what he has done to EARN the Presidency, what his credentials are, NOW HE"S TRYING TO MANAGE THE WAR> Don't try to be a military man all of a sudden if you didnt serve Barack.

Obama is NOT Monday-morning quarterbacking. He was opposed to the Iraq war BEFORE it began, as were many of us who had the good sense to smell a rottenly disastrous piece of Bush foreign policy when it smacked us on the nose.

It is sad to see how many people call Obama naive because of his Iraq plan. His ideas represent not just military tactics. They go far beyond that, offering a very detailed blueprint to our policy towards Iraq and its neighbors in years to come. Naive = Bush and Cheney, who think that guns solve everything.

Too many of you are only concentrating on the bit about brigades and timetables. Barack is also looking ahead, trend-setter that he is, and discussing the humanitarian, diplomatic and legal issues in addition to the political and military ones. (I have excerpts of his speech - that is how I know).

The really naive people are those who believe that nothing can change. Courageous leaders, like FDR and Churchill -and a certain candidate - realize that things can change - you just have to have the courage to make it happen.

Posted By Lioness, Washington DC : September 12, 2007 1:36 pm

^^let’s just hope the people read what you said and understand it! Look at the many comments posted here! There all from people who act as though they want the war to end? But still think Iraq had something to do with 9/11? That was the main reason for this war, however for some reason we're talking about Iraq and not the people who are responsible for this? And yet are quick to call Obama naive? Maybe they should look in the mirror and ask themselves if they are naive not Obama. GO OBAMA 08!

"Also, Obama never said he VOTED against the war; he simply said he was opposed to it from the start (which is true)." David in Arlington–How do you know this is true? Because he said so? Just because someone says something, doesn't mean it's true. The Bush Administration did originally say Hussein had WMDs–remember?

"On one hand people say they want change but don't want to elect anyone who want to implement it." Done with Hatred–A candidate will say anything to get elected. Unfortunately, not a single candidate from either side has shown me they are serious. While Obama's stances on health care, education, and the war are certainly wonderful–at what cost are they implemented? These candidates tell us what we want to hear, but they fail to be candid with us and tell us the realities.

"Our economy is starting to suffer, and we have been so focused on Iraq, we forgot to take care of our own people." Brendose in Oceanside–Our economy is STARTING to suffer? Where have you been the last couple years? And another thing–this "plan" of Obama's…well, I hate to tell you but he has what are known as "political strategists" that formualate a plan for him, which he passes off as his own. All of the candidates do this; they always have and always will. Bush Sr. was infamous for his "No new taxes!", and wouldn't you know he ended up implementing new taxes.

"Obama DID vote against the war, it was just in a State senate, not the US Senate." Matt in Columbus–I would love to see your source for this. He in no way "voted" in the IL State Legislature against the war in Iraq. How do I know? I went through legislation to see his voting record during his service between 2002 and 2004.

I can't help but think that it's a issue of blind faith here–people are so fed up with Bush, they'll buy into anything that's different. My point of this post is that you can't believe everything these candidates tell you; use your right to ask questions! After eight years of Bush, I think we owe it to ourselves to demand more substance from these candidates. Change is good, but I want him (and other candidates) to answer why they support taking a certain action and how they plan on carrying said action out (what kind of numbers are we looking at?). Obama et. al need to remove the sugar coating already and be real.

Thanx Obama. Can not wait to have a piece of mind…I just want all this end and I am sure will. We know very well you are not the boss and can do nothing right now but I am glad you are there to assure us there is still hope… Can not wait the years of your presidency. I am tired with politicking too and just wanna rest the media bashing of your you or your wife.. Good luck and let's hope

For those of you who believe in this war - what are you doing here? Go and volunteer… and you, great analytical minds who always seem to know the perfect solution - get off your sofa and run for the PTA or the civic club…just be glad and grateful that someone has finally enough integrity to stand up with a common sense solution.
Go Barack.

Aren't you guys embarrassed by betraying your ignorance by making statements that are totally untrue and the opposite of what was actually said. Anonymous, I don't see anywhere that Obama said to remove the troops from Iraq and send them to Iran. James from Phoenix, Obama said he absolutely would NOT, under any circumstances, nuke Pakistan or anybody else. Pay attention when you read things, as the teacher said, maybe you can get it right next time.

Barack, your only a couple of issues off from me voting for you.

Obama, I salute you.

Now here is someone with a real solution outside cheap talk. This man truely has unparalled leadership abilities. If such a man can be labeled "naive", then America should forget about becoming the world leader once again. We must re-capture that leadership position, and I think Obama can make it possible for that to happen. Let us get Obama elected. Put aside your racial inclinations.

Joe from Pittsburgh,

Obama is NOT Monday-morning quarterbacking. He was opposed to the Iraq war BEFORE it began, as were many of us who had the good sense to smell a rottenly disastrous piece of Bush foreign policy when it smacked us on the nose.

It is sad to see how many people call Obama naive because of his Iraq plan. His ideas represent not just military tactics. They go far beyond that, offering a very detailed blueprint to our policy towards Iraq and its neighbors in years to come. Naive = Bush and Cheney, who think that guns solve everything.

Too many of you are only concentrating on the bit about brigades and timetables. Barack is also looking ahead, trend-setter that he is, and discussing the humanitarian, diplomatic and legal issues in addition to the political and military ones. (I have excerpts of his speech - that is how I know).

The really naive people are those who believe that nothing can change. Courageous leaders, like FDR and Churchill -and a certain candidate - realize that things can change - you just have to have the courage to make it happen.

Wow. the level of hostility from these post is so disheartening. What ever happened to that shining city on a hill that Reagan spoke of so eloquently?

As a Christian, a veteran and a Republican, I'm disturbed by the vicious attacks by some of my fellow citizens on a sitting Senator and presidential candidate, who is simply trying to offer a plan, an idea whose primary implementation would result in fewer American deaths from a questionable cause.

We don't have to spew invective to be right or passionate.

a couple of quick things, It's Darfur not Dafur. Most rural voters I know believe in a Loving God, not a racist past. And Obama, though well-intended, may be a little too hopeful about the effectiveness of the UN.

My friends, we - the proud citizens of the United States of America - are last best hope of the civilized world.
(Obama 9/8/07)

I'm tired of feeling wounded, tired of the fracture, tired of fear, and tired of feeling forgotten.

When will we shine again?

the words "liberal" and "self" are synonymous.
Look in a thesaurus and the first symonym for liberal ill be free. Another Republican who reads a book a week just like the the president.

You see, you are missing the point entirely. Nobody told the American people we were going to Iraq to liberate the people and set up a government. Why? Nobody would have gone for that. There are an overwhealming number of countries out there that could use some liberating.
The fact is political revolution only works from within. In the middle east America is viewed as a country that seeks to dictate world affairs outside its borders. Once we leave they will not respect anything that we had our hand in. btw we got saddam out of the deal last time we set up a government in Iraq.

No no we were told there was WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION in Iraq. Thats why we made the initial commitment. To say that democrats dont understand our commitment is false. We comitted to securing weapons of mass destruction. Not a world police operation.

And a real charasmatic leader, like Obama CAN bring together the leaders of nations and come to good compromises. Remember the whole JFK cuban missle crisis thing? Yea.

Im sure your superior Republican intelligence would tell you to just not talk to them. Like Bush.
Btw if you look at a census you will see that the more college degrees a state has, the bluer it gets. So to assert that dems are stupid, is well………….stupid like bush.

I'm very Conservative on economic policies, but this leave or not to leave stuff just seems to be commonsense over spin.

CORRECTION:

I wrote about Obama nuking Pakistan. That is incorrect - thank you to you who have questioned the statement.

The CORRECT statement should have been:

Funny, you call for THIS solution in Iraq, yet you tell the world you would further destabilize Pakistan (our ally) by sending missile strikes into Pakistan WITHOUT the consent of the Pakistani Leader - who already is struggling with Islamic Extremists and attempting to hold together the government (which controls nuclear weapons).

God bless the French!!!! They were smart enough not to get involved in this war!!!!

- - - - -

Has there EVER been a war (that didn't involve wooden ships) where the French were involved?

And Iron Chef battles don't count either!

You ignorant bigots can talk about how he is wrong, where is your plan?

If this country is such a bad place to be… then why do so many want to come here? There are thousands of people who die trying to come to this country every day.

^^^Coming from another arrogant American who really needs to get out of the country more! The only people, who look to come here, are those from countries that are damn near third world countries. We have a welfare system that will pay for these people to live for ever. So if I can’t get that sh** in my country why wouldn’t I want America to pay for me to live??? That’s the only reason I can think of.

Now if you’re still stuck in the 1900's to where immigrants were shipped into Ellis Island then yes America is the great nation for freedom. However in today's world, all of that has changed. We are not that same nation we put the wrong people in office. Who cared nothing of good foreign relations and cared about nothing else but money. Stick to the facts not fear of seeing a black man in office. Because that’s all I got from your blog was fear of Obama's possibility of greatness. He called out the disastrous possibilities from day one! And now he's getting blasted for standing up to the war from the beginning? Yeah whatever I’m going to get even more involved just to help this man win just because of people like you John H.!

If you know nothing of the man dont judge.

Obama has rare leadership qualities. He certainly has great vision and wisdom. Please America, set aside your racial divide aside and put this man into the White House. He will make America admired by other nations, once again!

MJ, enough with the vote was stolen crap. Bush won, plain and simple. There are to many checks and balances to allow a candidate to steal an election. As far as Barack Obama winning from the Urban areas. That's possible, but you still have to carry the rural areas. And those people, I live in a rural area, will not vote for Barack Obama. I live in a very Democratic area, but I can tell you right now, if Barack or Hillary get the nomination, they will not get the votes to win the election. People do not like or trust either one of them. Barack and Hillary talk out of both sides of their mouth. They say what they think people want to hear and have no courage to stand up and do what's right. To call for a new constitutional convention convened by the UN is leaving Iraq to suffer. The UN can't do anything different than what has happened now. Also, if the US pulls out of Iraq, the UN will have to send in troops to help defend the country and guess what, that means sending in more US troops because we are part of the UN.

To Raymond in North Carolina, you must be awfully embarrassed to try and ridicule Obama on his math skills when in reality you have demonstrated to all of the readers your lack of basic reading skills. Here is what Obama says:"Immediately begin to pull out troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year."

We have over 15 months to go. Do I need to do the math for you, Raymond? You and Bush are a typical rightwing buffoons….often wrong but never in doubt.

Obama fails to say what we should do when the terrorists that the military is destroying in Iraq, follow us back to the US when he would have us run away.

What then? Convene a meeting and ask them nicely to leave us alone. Get real, nice talk and hopes are what got us attacked in the first place.

"Take immediate steps to confront the humanitarian disaster in Iraq, and to hold accountable any perpetrators of war crimes." Hysterical. What does he think is happening now? And if we aren't there, how do we catch the perpetrators.

The people in those building and planes on 9/11 had no weapons, superior firepower or body armor. Our troops do. Wake up and let the military win for a change instead of insisting on running away for political reasons.

Posted By Jimbo Colburt : September 12, 2007 12:39 pm

I think people get dumber and dumber as time passes! What makes you think we are not more vulnerable now??? Bin Laden to me is smarter then our current president. And the fact that Al queda has yet to attack us since 9/11 makes me wonder if this was an inside job to take over because both Bin laden and the Bush family hated Sadam…That is a fact, not that BS "Obama fails to say what we should do when the terrorists that the military is destroying in Iraq, follow us back to the US when he would have us run away."

Do you live in a bubble? I would feel safer if our troops were on the home front fighting instead of in someone else’s country fighting in a land that did not have terrorist in the beginning. You people need help, stop being lazy and educate your self. Stop letting media spin do the teaching.

We can use some more common sense in this country. And Senator Obama shows the way of common sense.

We went to Iraq to find so called WMD, chemical-biological weapons with advanced delivery system and an advanced nuclear program with a threat of mushroom cloud. US Army, Navy and Air Force delivered what the civil administration asked for. They defeated Iraqi army, toppled Saddam, helped to hand the power to democratically elected Iraqi government. So military aspect of the mission is over.

Now Iraqi people have to find a way to accomodate all different factions in running the country. So the issue at hand is one of sitting different factions together and find a common ground. If the leadership of these groups find a compromise position, their followers engaged in violence will stop it. There are some other factors as well. Iran and Syria is fueling the fire by providing support to Shiite so that US will remain engaged in Iraq and Iran will continue to flex its muscle. Al Qaeda is fighting in Iraq, again to keep us busy in Iraq and they will find time to regroup in Pakistan/Afghanistan or elsewhere. US Army is doing nothing but acting as a referre in the middle of a civil war. The solution is a political one, not a military one.
So Obama is absolutely right, our sons and daughters should not sacrifice their own lives to referee a civil war. We need to put tons of pressure on Iraqi govt to engage all fighting factions in dialogue, to train their police and army to take defence matters in their hand. What do you guys mean when say they are not ready for their own security. They have been a country for a long time with an established arm forces. 4 years is enough to rebuild their capability.

Die hard republicans should use logic a little more than ill concieved passion and truth twisting facts to continue George Bush'e failed Iraq strategy. Obama might not be in Senate but he arranged rallies in public, protested against Iraq war on streets of Chicago, spoke against the war in TV shows.

People with functioning brain, intellect and broadness to acknowledge the mistakes while willingness to correct it can not help but support Obama in 2008.

Since the details of the plan are not posted here by CNN and are only an outline, it is hard to image what there can be to shout about pro or con. Taking out troops slowly over the course of a year and a half or two years is nothing new.

I'd like to take to train the Iraqi people to protect themselves and get out ASAP. Why spend $2 billion a week in Iraq when I should be getting a tax cut with that money.

Democracy can't be handed to the Iraqis on a silver platter, they have to want it, they have to fight for it.

I've spent quite enough money providing a welfare state for the Iraqi people, managed by a huge bureaucracy.

Bush and neoCon Republicans = big spenders, big bureaucracy

Real Republicans want to get out as soon as possible. Can't be done immediately, Obama says a year and a half or two years. What are you neoCon Republicans saying, it will take 10 years? I'm supposed to pay $2 billion a week for 10 years??!!!

No way. Republicans are for getting out as soon as possible, so are the democrats. Bush and neoCons want to stay forever.

Spinstopper:

(1) "Is Obama going to lock them all in the same room"

No. Like he said, he's going to turn that part over to the UN, where it should have gone in the first place. (The Bushites themselves said, rather proudly, that they "don't do" nation-building.) Also, you're not taking account the effect of a clear withdrawal policy, which is to change the balance of power and hence the potential for negotiations. In any case, it's their country.

As far as losing in Iraq: We've already lost the most important thing, which is the respect and friendship of the world (remember after 9/11). We did this by destroying a country through arrogance and ignorance. (Your faction's pathetic excuse for a leader [our president] didn't know the difference between Sunni and Shi'a a few months before the invasion.) We've also driven religious conflict with apocalyptic potential. Unless you're an Armageddon-lover, that's the biggest loss possible. It also means that winning in Iraq is impossible: how can you win when you're creating more enemies than you kill - a consequence of the war in Iraq on which al-Quaeda and US intelligence concur.

As far as Vietnam: We lost because our side was headed by a gang of corrupt cowardly tyrants (does corrupt ring a bell?) - most of whom got their start in life fighting for the French empire against their own people. And what put an end to the war was the people in the center turning against it.

Plus a lot of people on the right, which wasn't so blindly partisan then. And which still had some understanding that slandering the other side is unpatriotic because there's strength in unity, not in tearing apart.

I think Obama's got my vote with this plan.

"After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

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…

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 an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than 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."

BARACK OBAMA. OCTOBER 2, 2002

can somebody please tell me the man who speaks these prophetic words isn't ready to be presient?

I just had to post this again because this should shut all the nay sayers up!

I fully support Barack Obama's plan for withdrawal and wouldn't be surprised if our current president didn't support it too — secretly. I think Barack Obama is the only one who has the vision, judgment, experience and strength to accomplish his plan and then some! Go Obama Go!!!

"After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

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…

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 an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than 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."

BARACK OBAMA. OCTOBER 2, 2002

can somebody please tell me the man who speaks these prophetic words isn't ready to be presient?

Posted By Ryan, McLean,VA : September 12, 2007 12:46 pm

^^^Right on Right on!!! It has to be some underlining dislike for Barack! Maybe is it the fact that he's talented. Or maybe is it because he seems smarter then the others. Or is it because some people just don’t know what’s good for them? Not one media outlet will even post that transcript I applauded you for posting that letting some of the people who blog blind to the fact that what's exactly happening now Obama called out back in 2002! I trust this mans judgment that statement was probably considered NAIVE back then. While the ever so experienced ones just stood up and voted for the war. Not to mention any names but Hill Clinton was so experienced that she gave GW the permission to invade Iraq.

I wonder if that’s what the American people want experienced naïve leaders? I mean is it because they are used to this type of leadership and don’t want anything else but the same BS. I really hope we out number the naïve Americans and place the right man in office.

GO OBAMA!

NEW "OLD" IDEA RELATIVE TO IRAQ STRATEGY.

Why not try what was done with Germany at the end of WWII. We offer the Iraq people and government one more chance at self governance with a very clear dead line. If the country is not capable of self governance by the end of 2009, we implement an occupation strategy. That occupation strategy will involve dividing the country into separate sectors and identify occupying nations to take control of those sectors. Perhaps Sunni's in Iraq would be more conciliatory if they knew Iran was a potential occupying force, perhaps the Kurds would be more placating if Turkey were identified as an occupying force and finally Shiite's might be more indulgent if they knew Syria was potentially an occupying force.

It is sad that so many are closed minded. People yell for change, but then are afraid when change gets close. You have to choose a side. You say you are for the military, but let them die for a war that has nothing to do with anything but money making. Why? Why are you not trying to change this? These wonderful men and women signed up to serve us all, serve an ungrateful country. We yell for freedom and security, but then have no problem with the military being used for Bush's personal gain.
You have to be willing to accept change. It will happen one way or another. We can support change and get someone like Senator Obama in the white house, or we can continue on just putting money into the white house with the same rhetoric, the same ideals, the same hate, with all the repercussions. No I say it is time for a change. We need someone who looks at the world as a whole. Continuing to try to make ourselves feel better by proclaiming to be the best nation, while at the same time forgetting and ignoring all the reasons we are great is just hypocrisy at its finest!! Pay attention to the world around you, we are not alone, we are not the only country in the world, we are all one. We are all humans, but apparently some have forgotten and deem some lives worth more than others (or even worse deem lives not as good as money).
Thank you Senator Obama, for taking the initiative, something that no one has been able or willing to do. Thank you for your audacity to hope. Thank you for giving me that same hope. We need change. The way I see it none of the other candidates on either side want to make changes. They may want to do something a little different, but for the most part, aside from Senator Obama, it is the same speeches, the same line drawn and the same rhetoric that has kept us from knowing a world community these last 7 years.

"After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

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…

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 an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than 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."

BARACK OBAMA. OCTOBER 2, 2002

can somebody please tell me the man who speaks these prophetic words isn't ready to be presient?

Republican blind loyalist fear the actual sanity of Obama's proposal and position. As GWBush said during his 2000 campaign, the U.S. should not be in the business of "nation building." W must end this war.

Being called naive and irresponsible is one step above being called shiftless and lazy.

We've come a long way. Yeah, right!

Obama, we would be so fortunate to have you as president, but from these comments, the obtacles seem overwhelming.

Another wannabe candidate trying to grab the spotlight and votes by ending the war in Iraq, regardless of the catasrophic results to the citizens, Obama is unquestionably, too inexperienced and without vision to be President of this Great Nation. The men who are best qualified are Biden and Dodd; yet, the Democrats aren't wise enough to see the potential of these great men.

Obama fails to say what we should do when the terrorists that the military is destroying in Iraq, follow us back to the US when he would have us run away.

What then? Convene a meeting and ask them nicely to leave us alone. Get real, nice talk and hopes are what got us attacked in the first place.

"Take immediate steps to confront the humanitarian disaster in Iraq, and to hold accountable any perpetrators of war crimes." Hysterical. What does he think is happening now? And if we aren't there, how do we catch the perpetrators.

The people in those building and planes on 9/11 had no weapons, superior firepower or body armor. Our troops do. Wake up and let the military win for a change instead of insisting on running away for political reasons.

Obama, quite trying to score political points by saying that you, unlike other candidates, were against the war from the start. You were not in the Senate at the time. Stop Monday-morning quarterbacking the decision to go to war. Besides, the initial decision to go to war and the decision to get out of Iraq are two distinct issues - stop conflating them.

Try this on for size: "The Audacity of Hoping to be President with Almost No Experience."

If Obama thinks he can pull all of our service men out of Iraq by the end of the year (lets just say 150k) -he either doesn't know how many men are in a brigade (4k-6k men according to major sources ) - or doesn't know how many months are in a year (or for that matter that theres only 3 months left in this one). Do we really want a president who this bad with math, the military and calendars? BTW - how come S. Bach didn't call this out?? He would have had it been a republican or Hillary.

All of you are right.

Let's continue to throw money and soldiers' lives at the Iraq problem. Forget having metrics or setting reasonable expectations for completing goals. That strategy is SURE to work!

I love how people can criticize Democrats for "putting their heads in the sand", yet that's exactly what the Republicans are doing already…

CISCO

You just described George Bush.

Obama is spot on.

And back on topic here.

Barack you are a serious candidate with serious plans. It won't be easy to get past the barrage of the Clinton camp and the Neo Conservatives, but if anybody can do it we know you can. Whatever your plan is for a "sensible" withdrawal from Iraq, just please make sure you reach across the isle and make this a bipartisan effort! The Bush administration has divided our country into two (as you can see by the spinstopper and friends) and we need to heal our wounds as a nation. Democrats and republicans can still work together, we just need a leader that can do just that…LEAD

I am supportive of the idea of a troop withdrawal and I am a fan of Sen. Obama, however, one of his points ("Take immediate steps to confront the humanitarian disaster in Iraq, and to hold accountable any perpetrators of war crimes") leads me to wonder exactly what his "immediate steps" would be…this is the biggest question regarding the crisis in Iraq.
The Bush administration likes to point out the same point: pulling out our country's troops with no clear-cut strategy will cause a terrible problem. This is not up for debate. Interestingly enough Bush likes to brush past the other point: we would not be in such a lose/lose position if we had not unjustly invaded Iraq and waged a war in the first place.
In any event, I hope that Sen. Obama can deliver… Hopefully he will inform us of these "immediate steps" to confront the problems in the country. If he can solve this one, he's got my support.

All you people who think Barack will enact ANY sort of change in policy or direction in this country are seriously naive. Look at his record. Look at the people who are financing his campaign. He is adherant to the same special interests that drive policy as Hillary, John Edwards, Rudy Guiliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Bill Clinton, GEORGE BUSH, and so on. Just because the man stands up constantly talking about "change" and saying things will "be different" MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. He's about as Partisan a Senator can get. You think he is different because the media tells you he is? Because he's a black man? How about voting for someone who actually had the foresight and wisdom to vote against the war in the first place - not just as a "protest" vote after the fact? Obama is as slick a politician as they come…. look past the facade people!

Which of the candidates are you going to vote for then Cisco? The only one (if I remember correctly) with military experience is McCain? And he is pretty much done? So your "close mindedness" is really going to box you into a corner this election cycle…What a shame

Another guy who never served in the military, no foriegn policy experience, was raised a muslim politically pandering to anyone who is willing to be sucked in.

Funny, you call for THIS solution in Iraq, yet tell the world you'll nuke Pakistan to get OBL.

Posted By James, Phoenix AZ : September 12, 2007 11:39 am

Maybe it's me, please show me when Obama said he'd nuke Pakistan. I believe the only answer he gave about nukes was to take them off the table.

Clinton said she'd never take nukes off the table, even though she said she'd take them off the table a few years ago. That's what I call a flip-flop.

History will judge George W.Bush if he had done the right thing to go to WAR in Iraq.History had proven that what is not right to do before had a beneficial effect. I am from Southeast Asia and the country being colonized for 300 years by Spaniards was a blessing because It turned the country to the only christian nation in that continent. I guess that will apply to Iraq too. We will be grateful to one George W. Bush who stood up to the end to fight terrorism and propagate democracy in a region where it is not recognized. Senator Obama can't be a PRESIDENT if he had weak disposition. Al Qaeda are praying that he and Clinton will win.
The early withdrawal of US troops in Iraq will create chaos in that place, civil war will take place, and only God knows what will happen next.

While I like Obama in many ways, he is an idealist in many ways without the back ground to understand that for every action there is a reaction.

I never did support the invasion of Iraq. I figured at the end of the first Gulf war we would have to return, but the invasion of Iraq was for all of the wrong reasons at the wrong time and never did have a clearly stated objective for victory and exit, nor did it include an adequate number of forces to actually control the country side after conquering the nation, a matter that most would be invaders would not take very lightly. Unfortunetly, as much as I would like our forces out, it is somewhat nieve to belive that at this late date we can just pack it up and depart. It is not that I am afraid anyone is going to follow our forces home, that is scare mongoring, nor am I afraid of what it would do to our standing in the world community, the Bush adminstration has already taken care of that. It is a matter that our immediate withdrawal will create a power vaccum in the region and create a very volitale situation that really would threaten world peace. Presently there is no plan in place to make it so our forces can leave Iraq. Nor do we need any more witch hunts. What we do need is the presure of the President to make it clear to the Iraq government, that we are NOT there for the long haul, that they MUST form a stable gvernment and take control of their own destiny, under the table that if they are unable to do so, we will put in place someone that is capable of governing.

Obama needs as we can say seasoning, he is not ready for a leadership role of this importance in the world community, yet. As I said earlier I like Obama, but after 7 years of a amatuer in the White House, I do not think we need to go from extreme right amatuer status to extreme left amatuer status, some how I just don't think they would off set each other.

I'm glad to see the brainless Neo Conservatives assaulted this thread almost immediately! You guys are on target here…It's pretty easy to see that you all don't want to face Obama in the general Too bad the "spin" you guys try to put on this is almost 99% false…Nuking Pakistan? Dems want another Vietnam? Running out of a newly formed democracy? (that one made me LOL the most!!!!) The "intelligent" people on here can see through your lies people…you might as well keep your comments to yourself..or go post on a Mitt "The Twit" Romney article! You guys seem to avoid Republican vs Republican articles and focus purely on the Dems…Your obsession is unhealthy…Get a life!

Obama only proves with his so called "plan" that he has no clue about foreign policy. It's that simple.

This man has vision…he can see things coming…go ahead don't listen to him again and you're going to find yourself in the war of all wars.

Senator Obama is speaking honestly and intelligently about the issue of Iraq, just as he does about all issues. Once again he is exhibiting the bold and smart leadership that this country desperately needs right now. Thankfully, we here in Iowa recognize what an exceptional candidate he is–support for Obama is very strong and unparalleled by the other candidates.

Barack Hussein Obama needs to stop using the Madrassa mentality he learned while a youth in Indonesia. He is hiding his past, and we're being made to look like fools by not examining him closely. This man is no more fit to be the Commander in Chief of US forces than is Hillary. These people are jokes that the fools in America are actually taking seriously. They're both scared out of their wits to face the prospect of having to actually run the US and this war at the same time. Neither is up to the task - especially B. Hussein Obama.

God bless the French!!!! They were smart enough not to get involved in this war!!!!

Wow, this is exactly what the Muslim extremist terrorists are demanding - immediate pullout.

Thanks Senator Obama. It's time to stop this senseless brutal war. Your leadership and judgement on this war is unquestionable. It's also time to oppose the eminent war with Iran. Economic sanctions will easily force iran to surrender.
It should be noted that Iran is now rationing oil. Iran also import 70% of refine oil. A simple blockade will be disaster to the Ayatollahs.
OBama08

Obama, Reid, Hagel, Schumer, Kucinich. If these so called men are in charge as my three month old son grows to become a man, then I will have him move to another country. This is certainly not the country I grew up in and cherish so dearly. I would love to see these guys go over to Iraq and Afghanistan and spew this garbage to the troops. Treason is all that it can be described as in my eyes. Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Reagan. These were men. They would never have allowed this type of rhetoric deter them from the end goal. Destroy the enemy before they destroy you. We need to finish this job and then move on to the next problem child in the war on terror. Bush has not made all of the right decisions perhaps, but he is the man who will go down in the history books as the man of the hour. Rightly so. Could you imagine Gore in this situation? We must not allow the seed of hat etoward our country to ever be planted again. Chase them until they can run no more. A modern day Roman march through every hill and valley until their resolve to destroy us is extinguished. That is the bottom line. God bless this country and our troops who are doing the good deed that needs done.

OBAMA, WHY DID YOU JOIN ANOTHER RELIGION ? WAS IT TO COVER UP YOUR MUSLUM UPBRINGING? I WOULDN'T EVEN GO TO THE POLLS IN 2008 IF ONLY LIBERALS WERE RUNNING. I HOPE NO LIBERAL WINDS UP IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

This plan is naive at best and disastrous at worst. Does all the bombing/killing stop while we wait for a constitutional convention to meet and wrangle on forever? Talk about human disaster–this plan is one in the making.

James, Phoenix AZ

"I don't hate Obama - I just think he is amazingly naive.

Mr Obama - HOW do you expect to have a political surge without the force to suppress violence? Do you think the violence will simply stop because YOU or the UN tell them to lay down their arms?" Naive?

He didn't say everyone should be out "tomorrow".

You don't always have to have guns blazing. Talking to people can work. You've just grown accustomed to this administration's wanton disregard for diplomacy. Stop screaming and work to find a solution.

Violence is happening all around the world. However, we insist on "keeping the peace" in Iraq. Yea right. Don't lose the real issue here… We shouldn't be there in the first place.

Wake up James. Wake up.

Wallace

- wag

How is this "major address" bold new leadership? Compare this to Governor Richardson's "Toward a New Realism in Iraq" (http://billrichardson.cachefly.net/pdf/issueflyers/IraqFlyer.pdf), and it looks like all Senator Obama is accomplishing is world class plagiarism! I am sure Governor Richardson is flattered by the imitation, except for the fact that Senator Obama will not commit to removing ALL troops. Read the fine print: "all COMBAT troops". Ask him how many "security forces" (btw, if they have a gun, they are combat troops; no matter how they are defined)

If you want to exhibit real leadership, Senator Obama, withdraw your candidacy and endorse Governor Richardson.

CNN reports on Barack Obama's bedroom or his fundraiser with Oprah and the posting gets hundreds of comments.

CNN reports on Barack Obama's policy platform and the count is currently only 15 comments.

Proves that this forum and its users can't be taken seriously.

I don't know who some one that has never been in the service, or a combat area can tell the american people this is what he will do, I being a wonded Vet and Has seen combat thinks alot of these politions are just talking to the people that don't know which way to turn because they don't know anything, and haven't been or seen anything but B.S.

I believe any US citizen running for president should have at least 4 years of military experience, I don't believe Obama has what it takes to be president or for that matter even have a say in what U.S. troops should do, what did he say about the forgotten Gulf War 1 and the Veterans that fought that war?.

I don't think racism has been mentioned here. If you're not qualified… you're not qualified. Thankfully, affirmative action doesn't apply to the Presidency. (I am a minority, so please don't try to lecture me on affirmative action)

BTW. Sorry to inform some of you.. but FREEDOM isn't free. Where do you think we'd be if we would have said "let's end the war now" during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, during WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and Desert Storm… before the job was done?

I would argue that the "job wasn't done" when we stopped during Desert Storm… but the political objective of liberating Kuwait was complete… so the President rightfully called a cease fire. (I was there as part of 3rd Armored Division… and several times after…so please don't try to lecture me about Desert Storm or the defense of Kuwait).

Thanks,

Here's another politician who has never donned a uniform, has NO MILITARY record, suddenly becoming an expert. He grew up in the protected "ME " generation, he doesn't know that the US has enemies. Sorry Barack,

I don't buy it.

"Finally, therealist (seems like a contradiction in term" ? You probably meant terms.

"Obama never said he VOTED against the war; he simply said he was opposed to it from the start (which is true)."

He opposed it but he voted FOR funding it? THAT is a contradiction in terms.
Get Real. Stop being a fan, and start trying to be objective.

Right on, David from Arlington! People seem to post "thoughts" with no "facts."
Bring our troops home!!!

So Obama wants all the troops out of Iraq by the end of 2008? Inasmuch as that seems to be the entire basis of his candidacy, he won't have anything to do after he's sworn in in January of 2009! (Oh, wait, that's probably a GOOD thing - a President who does nothing and leaves Americans alone to prosper without government interference!) And for all of you who are swooning about the accidental senator from Illinois (any imbecile can get elected in Illinois if he's a Democrat, e.g. Dick Durbin), have you ANY idea what Obama would do as President? (Hint: it involves higher taxes, redistribution of wealth, socialized medicine, recession, stock market decline, lower standard of living, and taking orders from the U.N.)

Thank God some Democrat finally has the nerve to do what is necessary– wage peace. Bush and Co. should never have been authorized to invade Iraq using the misdirection and fearmongering, any informed citizen could and did see through and oppose, in addition to countless thousands across the world, whom the American media ignored.

President Obama, that is a nice sound.

hurrah…ot however the military say it…the right steps…the right direction for the usa

Pulling out 1 brigade a month, regardless of the outcome? I fear that Mr. Obama's plan will kill a lot of people. As US forces in the area reduce they will be forced to spend more and more time defending themselves and not do any type of patrol or assistance to the population. The last units out will probably be doing so under heavy fire.

Sad really, but the news of it will be minor, since they will probably kill reporters as fast as they kill anybody else. The people against US troops in Iraq should sleep much better as word of death and destruction trickles to a near stop. Their roar of victory in pulling back the troops will deafen any bad news from its consequences. Only then will the true damage be known, and the news media turns on the US military for abandoning the people of Iraq. Only then will this be another Vietnam.

ever hear the phrase, "stubborn as a mule"? funny it's not the dems who are being stubborn here….why can't you repuglies just admit defeat and let us clean up what you've messed up?

Tell me more about the "regional security compact" with countries like Iran? Syria? Our "friends" in Saudi Arabia? Please.
Obama is the embodiment of the Peter Principle: an excellent state legislator and speaker, reaching his level of incompetence as a nationwide policy shaper.

Too bad Dennis Kucinich has had a 12-step plan to leave Iraq for quite some time. It looks like Obama is finally catching on.

We'll leave Iraq and go to Pakistan. The IRAQ war will end, but a NEW war will likely begin with Obama.

I say NObama.

I full support Obama's interst and actions to end the Iraq War. In his call; "….. and to hold accountable any perpetrators of war crimes", I hope Obama means ALL; including USA. Our presence, illegal invasion of sovereign country, illegal occupation is the "fuel" for terroist acts in innocent civilans. The first four to be brought before the Haugue International Court is Chenney, Rumsfield, Wolfiwitz and Bush.

I dunno why folks won't give a different strategy a chance, but staying in Iraq, the way we are, us just not sustainable. Not from a military resource view and not from a fiscal view. Also, not from a moral view (our soldiers being killed and wounded). However, the moral view is conflicted, cos we are also viably morally bound to fix the freakin mess we started (Cheney/Bush started), and to leave Iraq in a lurch. However, as Ron Paul says, we are largely not staying in Iraq cos of a moral obligation, but to save face. Even Huckabee does not say we have a moral obligation, but we have to leave with honor. What we have to do, is realize, like Obama does, that we obviously cannot fix this by ourselves. We don't have the resources. We totally underestimated and continue to underestimate the magnitude of the differences within the Sunni and Shia populations (which have been around for hundreds of years and just recently suppressed by the dictator Sadam) and fail to even try and fix the problem through means other than our little military might. We need economic, diplomatic, military and international support. One of four aint gonna cut it. I don't care if it's Obama's strategy or Paul's or from whichever party, but the current Bush/McCain neocon delusional approach is whack.

1. "Immediately begin to pull out troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year."

It ain't going to happen. There are too many variables that need to be taken into account before we withdraw all troops. It is a reality that some troops will have to remain for an indeterminate amount of time. We can't leave behind our equipment, the thousands of Iraquis who helped us and also face the consequences to the Iraqui population at large of a total US withdrawal. Doesn't anybody remember what happened when we left the Afghanis in the midst of a civil war? Well, they ended up with the Taliban and Afghanistan became the training ground for Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.

Providence: He said he opposed the war. He didn't say he opposed it by voting. I oppose the war in Iraq and I don't vote in the Senate. Clearly if he wasn't in the Senate at that time, which we all know he wasn't, he's stating that he has opposed the war from a civilian standpoint and since he was elected, from a Senator's standpoint. I'm also sad to see your backwards thinking that a black man cannot win in today's U.S.

I'm looking forward to continue to work on his campaign and to having him as the next President of the U.S.!!!

Obama's speech will call for an end to the war as reported by CNN…but what CNN didn't report is that it will also chastise the media and elite punditry (including CNN) for not questioning the rationale for war and cheerleading a war based (and perpetuated) on false claims. You can find excerpts from the coming speech here:

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/_in_speech_today_obama_will_slam_dc_pundits_and_polls_for_supporting_invasion.php

Where is Clinton on all of this? Where is her speeches? Where is she on Iraq? On Cuba? On Pakistan? Why has she beens silent? The truth is that she is looking to skate in the nomination without offering anything substantive. And it looks like that's what's going to happen.

I saw two headlines right next to each other on the page. The first said "Obama: We have to begin to end this war now." The second: "McCain: I can out-campaign most anybody." Now, which one of the two sides is really focused on the issues? Put up or shut up GOP. You've had your chance. Obama '08.

The take-away from this is very sad, in that only Obama has enough integrity to oppose the war from the beginning. All of the other politicians such as Billary will start changing their minds, "gee I didnt mean to approve the funds" and mccain will whine about "you're not real patriots" if