July 22nd, 2008
11:30 AM ET
10 years ago

Obama: Stability ultimately in hands of Iraqis


Watch Obama's press conference Tuesday.

(CNN) - Sen. Barack Obama said Tuesday he was pleased with the reduction of violence in Iraq since the deployment of more U.S. troops, but said it was a result of several factors, not just the surge.

Related: McCain camp hits Obama over surge

"We don't know what would have happened if the plan that I preferred in January 2007 - to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation, to begin a phased withdrawal - what would have happened had we pursued that strategy," Obama said after landing in Amman, Jordan.

"I am pleased that as a consequence of great effort by our troops - but also as a consequence of a shift in allegiances among the Sunni tribal leaders, as well as the decision of the Sadr militias to stand down - that we've seen a quelling of violence," he said.

Listen: CNN's Sasha Johnson reports on Obama's Jordan visit

But, Obama said, a functioning Iraq will ultimately depend on the capacity of the Iraqi people to unify themselves, get beyond sectarian divisions and set up a government that works for the people.

Full story

Filed under: Candidate Barack Obama • John McCain
soundoff (297 Responses)
  1. Frank, Missouri

    Absolutely right !

    July 22, 2008 12:56 pm at 12:56 pm |
  2. DD, New York

    Is it me, or is Sen. Obama a bit presumptious that he WILL be our next president? Is it arrogance? Or is it delusional? I find all of his aura to be a bit scary.

    July 22, 2008 12:57 pm at 12:57 pm |
  3. DD, New York

    P.S. And he's got 300 advisors???!!!! 300???!!!

    July 22, 2008 12:59 pm at 12:59 pm |

    If BO make you sick. Take two asprins and get off the blog.

    July 22, 2008 12:59 pm at 12:59 pm |
  5. DC

    Lisa July 22nd, 2008 12:14 pm ET

    If you're going to bring them home, bring them home. All talk and no substance.

    Lisa, he cant bring them home he is still a senator and cant do much...if he is president he will do that.....why do you act so dumb???

    July 22, 2008 12:59 pm at 12:59 pm |
  6. Lisa

    Unless McCain can give me a valid reason why they decided to ignore Bin Laden and instead focus on Iraq...he can shut his pie hole.

    And Nate...our troops should not be dying trying to stabilize Iraq. Whose fault is it that they are? Not Obama's fault...thats for dang sure.

    July 22, 2008 01:01 pm at 1:01 pm |
  7. Brian

    Even from reading all the previous comments for both sides....Obama is still the obvious choice. As long as the Republican party keeps bringing up non-issues like religion and trying to take away everyones God-given right to marry – even if they are the same sex – the party is not going to succeed. Obama 08!!!

    July 22, 2008 01:01 pm at 1:01 pm |
  8. Jane, MD

    Can one of you Republicans tell me how you intend to pay for the continued occupation of Iraq?
    In case you have been in a coma, AMERICA IS ON SALE, and the rest of the world, including those from oil rich countries, are buying America, real fast. Wake up you slumbering Republicans.

    July 22, 2008 01:01 pm at 1:01 pm |
  9. Chris

    OMG...the most ultra liberal magazine the NY Times is refusing to publish Mccain's OP ED unless he meets their editing demands and change his positions on Iraq? What a revelation.....NOT!

    Hmmmm, wasn't it also the NY Times that published a story claiming Mccain cheated on his wife based on a feeling some unnamed anonymous staffer had claimed? Oh NY Times, what a tangle web we weaved once we decide to deceive the public in pushing our own agenda! Once again, the NY Times stepped up to prove that journalism as lowered the bar of integrity and standards even lower then many had thought possible.

    July 22, 2008 01:02 pm at 1:02 pm |
  10. Dave, Illinois

    How freakin gullable can you Obamites get? Good lord, Obama is basically saying that the success accomplished in Iraq the last year would have happened without the Surge. What a pile. Obama simply cannot lower his over-inflated ego to admit he is wrong.

    July 22, 2008 01:04 pm at 1:04 pm |
  11. Cynthia

    And that is where it should be. The money being spent in Iraq could be better used in other places – especially here in the U.S.

    July 22, 2008 01:04 pm at 1:04 pm |

    For ARB,

    you're a bitter, little person.
    go away.
    and take McCain with you.

    July 22, 2008 01:04 pm at 1:04 pm |
  13. Chris

    POLITIC SOLUTIONS REQUIRES STABILITY. STABILITY REQUIRES SECURITY. SECURITY REQUIRES LAW AND ORDER VIA TROOPS. Out of the hundreds of advisor schooling Obama on the basics of foreign engagements, you would think someone would have learned the basics already.......I guess they're too busy planning the next photo op and staged show to bother with specifics. Scary notion folks.....vote Mccain Jindal in November and not role the dice on this one. The stakes are too high!

    July 22, 2008 01:06 pm at 1:06 pm |
  14. Nia Hussein- Phoenix, AZ

    What say you Mr McKeatingFive?! What exactly is your specefic plan for our troops? Since you want to continue our stay over there what is your specific pan while we are there?!

    July 22, 2008 01:06 pm at 1:06 pm |
  15. NoMcSame

    McSames cry of victory in the surge is equal to Bush and his mission accomplished statement. No war no need for a surge. No war and Iran would still be in check. No date set for exit means that thwy will keep us there for 100yrs. The peple of Iraq must learn to fight for themselves. They were good at it before so they can clean up their own house better than we can.

    July 22, 2008 01:07 pm at 1:07 pm |
  16. Kris from AZ

    It is true. Wethere is be now or later. Iraqis determine their future. We won the war. Now they have to make peace with them selves.

    July 22, 2008 01:08 pm at 1:08 pm |
  17. Obama Supporter 2


    If Obama is clueless what does that make McCain?????

    July 22, 2008 01:08 pm at 1:08 pm |
  18. Sean

    So Obama offers reasoned stances backed by examples and evidence, while McCain offers non-stop, rhetorical shrieking about how Obama wants to surrender without ever actually explaining how that point makes any logical sense, or how McCain would define the "victory" he claims that only he wants.

    Yeah – I'll go with Obama, thanks.

    July 22, 2008 01:08 pm at 1:08 pm |
  19. Walter, Long Beach

    How much longer is the press going to simply repeat John McCain's lies without pointing out that they are lies?

    July 22, 2008 01:11 pm at 1:11 pm |
  20. FLA

    You Obama supporters are voting for a farce. He can't back up what he says now with what he has said in the past. He is only saying what you WANT to hear.

    Will you people wake up...HE WILL NOT bring the troops HOME. He will not be able to once the commanders tell him it is not in the interest of our country to leave prematurely. He has already backed off of his knee jerk reaction to the "Pull them out now" approach.

    Puppet for Pelosi and Reid 08!!!

    July 22, 2008 01:12 pm at 1:12 pm |
  21. Janet

    Wake up CNN your idiotic threads highlighting John McSames attacks are getting monotonous. Also your racist headline "Barack's presidency could be bad for race relations" is race baiting" Stop it! And these lopsided polls that you cite as valid are also bogus. Are you polling minorites? NO ! So they are only based on a few whites who are predominately conservative. This is not a valid estimate of what all of the population thinks. It's just CNN's. Just because you have a few minorites as newscasters doesn't make your news fair and balanced.

    July 22, 2008 01:13 pm at 1:13 pm |
  22. Mikey

    McCain campaign: "....... rather than securing the victory our troops have earned and the surge has made possible,"

    Is this the same campaign that just criticized Obama for suggesting that if the surge has been successful, it would allow us to exit sooner? Didn't they say it was as bad a Bush's "Mission Accomplished" proclamation? Are they now making the same proclamation less than a week later? How stupid are these people?

    What are the odds that we will end up with a stable western friendly government in Iraq? Still very slim at best, right? How about getting Bin Laden? How about being welcomed as liberators? Less of a failure is still a failure! Thank you GWB and JSM.

    Also, they said that if we followed Obama's advice, we would have "lost" the war. What a crock. Had we followed Obama's advice, we would have never gone in at all and would have saved over 4,000 American lives, who knows how many Iraqi lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars. Plus we would have been able to focus on terrorism and avoided making hundreds of thousands more enemies through the Muslim world.

    Perhaps McCain wants to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in Viet Nam, too. Then on to free Czechoslovakia from Soviet control. Hope he doesn't send troops to patrol the border between Australia and Iran.

    July 22, 2008 01:14 pm at 1:14 pm |
  23. FactCheck

    Of the $341 MILLION DOLLARS A DAY that the US is wasting in Iraq, how much of it comes from the Iraq's own economy? Nada! This, despite the fact that the Iraqi economy has doubled over the last year. How dumb are the McCain supporters to not see through this?

    July 22, 2008 01:14 pm at 1:14 pm |
  24. E for Obama

    What surge policy? The surge is over!!! Is that McCain's argument, hypethicals. Well, here is a hypathetical, if Obama was president in 2000 we would not have invaded Iraq AND we would be succeeding in Afhgan where the terrorists are!

    Wake up people!!!

    July 22, 2008 01:14 pm at 1:14 pm |
  25. JimBlanco

    I find it fascinating that while Democrats attempt to portray themselves as highly educated do-gooders, they are almost exclusively the first to resort to childish name calling and most often offer the most ignorant blog comments possible. Just an observation...

    July 22, 2008 01:14 pm at 1:14 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12