Obama: Bad timing for Iraq hearings
Obama said Tuesday he doesn't think the Iraq hearing should have been held around 9/11.
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama criticized the timing of Tuesday’s hearings over the future of the Iraq war, because the Illinois senator said it sends the wrong message on the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11th attacks.
Obama harshly criticized the Bush administration in his statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee prior to questioning Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker. (Related: Iraqi government dysfunctional, U.S. envoy says)
“I think we should not have had this discussion on 9/11, or 9/10, or 9/12, because I think it perpetuates the notion that the original decision to go into Iraq was directly related to the attacks on 9/11," Obama said.
The Illinois senator added, “I think that some of the frustration you hear from some of the questioners is that we have now set the bar so low that modest improvement in what was a completely chaotic situation, to the point where now we just have the levels of intolerable violence that existed in June of 2006 is considered success, and it's not. This continues to be a disastrous foreign policy mistake. And we are now confronted with the question: How do we clean up the mess and make the best out of a situation in which there are no good options, there are bad options and worse options? And this is not a criticism of either of you gentlemen, this is a criticism of this president and the administration which has set a mission for the military and for our diplomatic forces that is extraordinarily difficult now to achieve.”
Referring to a comment President Bush reportedly made last week, Obama said, “We have the president in Australia suggesting somehow that we are, as was stated before, kicking A-S-S. How can we have a president making that assessment? And it makes it very difficult then for those of us who would like to join with you in a bipartisan way to figure out how to best move forward to extricate this from the day-to-day politics that infects Washington.”
- CNN Political Desk Managing Editor Steve Brusk
From CNN Politics
- Pressure builds on Biden to act on guns in wake of Colorado mass shooting March 23, 2021 12:16 pm
- Sidney Powell argues in new court filing that no reasonable people would believe her election fraud claims March 23, 2021 12:15 pm
- Postmaster General set to announce 10-year plan including longer mail delivery times and cuts to post office hours March 23, 2021 12:02 pm
- Progressive group launches $3.2 million advertising buy to push federal voting law March 23, 2021 11:01 am
- US and allies announce sanctions against Chinese officials for 'serious human rights abuses' against Uyghurs March 23, 2021 10:32 am
- Analysis: Trump's army takes aim at 2022 touting his election lies March 23, 2021 05:01 am
Oh give it up Obama, it doesn't help at all to make a mundane statement like this about timing. Why don't you focus on telling Americans why they should vote for you!
Obama's plan to deal with Iraq from his website: "The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008."
Bit late for that, isn't it? Of course, his plan is the same as all other plans that all other candidates have articulated, get it out and have Iraq fall on someone else's watch. Not a one of them has the guts to pull US troops out of Iraq and let it collapse into anarchy on his own watch. Look around, they all have plans to have troops withdrawn UNDER THE CURRRENT ADMINISTRATION! That's right, Obama, Clinton, Edwards, they all have it conveniantly mapped out that someone else will take that dirty little step long before that ball is in their hands. What happens if Bush doesn't oblige? What happens if we still have current US troop levels in Iraq on innaugeration day 2009? Not a one of them says what will happen. That's so they have enough wiggle room to not have to bite the bullet on their own watch. Mark me, Obama will not pull out of Iraq if we're still there where he takes office.
This administration and its supporters have tried to link 9/11 and the current war, but no links have been proven and it is just propaganda. At least Obama calls them on this without fear of backlash from whomever. Barack would make a great president and his vision could change alot of the negatives about this country. Another 4-8 years of Clinton is just not needed right now. The country should move away from division and corruption and towards cohesiveness and at least common respect of all people. I believe Obama can make this happen.
Obama says, "This continues to be a disastrous foreign policy mistake. "
Riiight. And nuking Pakistan would be the SMART approach to getting OBL, Mr Obama? Perhaps you need another cigarette to take the pressure off.
Posted By James, Phoenix AZ : September 11, 2007 5:35 pm
Actually Obama wants to take the Nukes off the table. Some people in this country really have no idea on anything. See thats the problem with media spin, they dont fully read the article just the headline or skim through the article. Then come up with there own conclusion and come up with comments like that. You people really have the wrong impression on Obama and im starting to question if it really has to deal with more then his "experience" hey thanks CNN for doing such a great job with that speach back then. Two thumbs up
One proactive question remains to be put forth: What happens if -in the best case senario – a year or two down the line, Iraq is free enough from sectarian strife for the U.S to significantly "draw down?" It will then (as now) take only a very small band of mal-contented Sunnis, Shia or Islamists to bomb another mosque, murder civilians or even criticize the other side, and the Iraqi conflagration starts anew. There IS no plausible "end game."
I dont know if you know this but AMERICA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OVER A MILLION IRAQI DEATHS. A MILLION IRAQIS HAVE DIED BECAUSE OF OUR LEADERS THIRST FOR OIL. THE HUMANITY SIDE OF THIS IS MORE IMPORTANT THEN A "WELL WE BROKE IT LETS FIX IT BS" WE ARE RESPONSIBLE TO ALLOW THOSE PEOPLE THERE FREEDOMS AND BY US STAYING THERE ONLY DELAYS THAT. WE NEED TO GET OFF OF OUR HIGH HORSE AND LET THOSE PEOPLE LIVE. MY GOODNESS STOP BEING SO ARROGANT!
Oh give it up Obama, it doesn't help at all to make a mundane statement like this about timing. Why don't you focus on telling Americans why they should vote for you!
And what if he's right? That’s probably why he is where he is and you are where you are? I would take his word over yours any day. For people to just sit there, just blind themselves over facts, and just refuse to take a man for his word and knowledge is just sick. But the majority of the people on these blogs voted for bush who is the dumbest president ever. Let me repeat that BUSH IS THE DUMBEST PRESIDENT EVER. But you question Obama? Please take off the clothing and just come out and say how you feel about the man!
" Why don't you focus on telling Americans why they should vote for you!"
Posted By Grace D. – Kansas City, Mo. : September 11, 2007 7:08 pm
He has been, Grace. You're not hearing him because he is missing half of the right protocol for most Americans.
Nothing he will say will be good enough for too many of you.
Oh, thats right.., terrorism is not related to the war in Iraq for the dems. No, no relation here…
Hey Obama, try telling that to our boys in uniform while their dodging Al Qaeda in Iraq's terror strikes. (eyes rolling)
Is there any wonder why this guy will never be trusted with America's security?? (eyes still rolling)
Posted By spinstopper : September 11, 2007 4:32 pm
the war on terror had nothing to do with iraq. al qaida was not even in iraq until we went there. we brought the terror to that region. and you can't trust obama with America's Security, but you can trust Bush, Cheney, Patreus, and the likes?
Oh give it up Obama, it doesn't help at all to make a mundane statement like this about timing. Why don't you focus on telling Americans why they should vote for you!
Posted By Grace D. – Kansas City, Mo. : September 11, 2007 7:08 pm
he does, every single day, you just need to pull your blinders off.
After watching that clip, I can honestly reaffirm my belief that Obama is totally ready for the Presidency. He is intelligent, sane, rational, and he offers a stable and truthful recognition of reality in regards to the Iraq War.
Please, let's give this guy the White House.
Paul from CA,
Move to a position of non-interventionism? Where do you think we were before 9/11? We certainly weren't invading countries. Second of all, how is a preemptive strike non-constitutional? I believe the Constitution was created for Americans and to protect Americans, not other countries who are about to attck us.
Paul from CA,
Move to a position of non-interventionism? Where do you think we were before 9/11? We certainly weren't invading countries. Second of all, how is a preemptive strike non-constitutional? I believe the Constitution was created for Americans and to protect Americans, not other countries who are about to attck us.
Posted By Kirsten, VA : September 11, 2007 9:52 pm
who was about to attack us? yeah, we got attacked on 9/11, by terrorists, not by a country, but really, who was about to attack us? iraq? don't make me laugh.
Presidential? Well…I am not so sure that any heads of state will like the lecturing. - pl. at the UN
ie.. We’re don't listen very well. Typical UN philosophy.
CNN, why does Sen. Obama get his own story on the Political Ticker for wasting the vast majority of his time lecuring Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker on his opinion before asking a question that another senator had already asked? This question was asked just before his time ran out. After Amb. Crocker told him he'd already responded and it was pointed out to him that he was out of time, Sen. Obama asked him to answer again anyways. This is not a campaign stop, Senator. Don't waste your time repeating your talking points on the Iraq war when you can be asking the hard questions to the man who is leading it on the ground. CNN, why not post a Political Ticker story about how Sen. Biden presided over the hearing with great poise and wisdom? Senator Biden asked pointed questions and guided the hearings very well.
obama, you're all wet.
what barack and a lot of dum dems dont get is that we're not targeting or interested in war with any particular country, but most of the terrorists are in Irq, Iran, syria.
Kristen from VA,
Iraq had no intention of attacking us, first of all. Secondly, there are three main reasons why we were attacked, which are not only backed up by the 9/11 comission report, but also our own CIA.... and they all have to do with meddling in the affairs of other countries (aka intervention). The first is our military presence in the Arabian peninsula, home of the two holy sites Mecca and Medina. Second, We support Israel, a country that acknowledgingly oppresses Palestinians. And third, we have been bombing and imposing sanctions on Iraq for the ten years (even after the gulf war). Those are the precise reasons why the middle east hates us...not because we are rich, free and nice people.
Next, you think that America has been non interventionist? In 1953 our CIA overthrew the Iranian democratically elected leader over oil interests and installed the Shah, who was a brutal dictator. After the Iranian Revolution in the 70's, the CIA was scared that there would be blowback from our installation of the Shah, so we supported SADDAM HUSSEIN to fight the Iraq-Iran War. We actually gave Iraq their weapons of mass destruction.
I'm not even going to get into the details of other interventions, including: nicaragua (contras), el salvador, chili, yemen, vietnam, korea, pakistan, syria, UAE, Lebanon, saudi arabia, afghanistan (during which bin laden worked for the CIA to fight the soviets), and the list goes on...
We have not been non-interventionalist since the WWII. We need to stop policing the world, mind our business, and be friendly and trade with other countries. But that will never happen until we drastically change our foreign policy.
I love comments like "Go tell the boys in uniform who are fighting for this country that." Well guess what? Your darn straight I would tell them. I would tell them that the terrorism that they thought they were fighting has changed fronts. That they are now fighting in a failed attempt to uphold some sort of government under the guise of democracy with the real intentions of gaining a large foothold on the oil there. I would tell them that all this stuff about eliminating terrorism as a result of 9/11 is all smoke and mirrors now and that our president has placed their lives, american lives, at stake and without even a good cause.
Obama is a straight shooter. He knows what's going on and hes putting it out there. The mans honesty is something to be admired as well since he stated the facts all too well that the only decision is to decide between bad and worse at this point. But to sit around with that whole "don't change horses in midstream" is preposterous!
To Matt in Houston:
Obama's annoyance about the timing of today's hearing was leveled at the Democratic Leadership. I watched it on CSPAN, and Obama said "WE should not have allowed this hearing to be scheduled today."
To Grace: You want Obama to use today's hearing on Iraq to "tell Americans why they should vote for him."? So you think the hearing was the appropriate place for Obama to give a campaign speech? Don't be absurd.
To James in Phoenix: My friend, don't be intellectually dishonest. Obama never said anything about nuking Pakistan...as a matter of fact, he specifically said nukes were off the table (and of course Hillary attacked him for that, even though SHE had said the same thing in 2006...but I digress). As someone who is obviously interested in our current political climate and the candidates, why not get the facts about Obama before posting such inaccurate statements?
Incidentally, last week, John Edwards gave a major foreign policy speech, and he said EXACTLY rhe same thing that Obama said last month in his speech regarding acting on intel on Al Qaeda inside Pakistan IF Musharraff refused to act. Funny thing is....Obama was lambasted by the media as "naive" and "inexperienced" for his speech, but John Edwards was applauded.
Go figure.
Obama made me laugh when he said wrong date/time of presentation! Common, we Americann's are not that stupid. Obama you better find something else to say than this to look like a candidate for president of the USA. Same on Obama for what he said!!!!!
Abiut all the terrorists on9/11 came from Saudi Arabia........why aren't we fighting there?
It is amazing what people choose to believe. Republicans just refuse to admit that they are dead wrong. I know it is tough to admit but Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on 9-11. There was no imminent threat from Saddam. He had no WMDs. No matter how you dress up a general, he is still not allowed to criticize the administration because it is against the law. And...the surge is not working. Why do you think Bush landed and stayed out in the middle of nowhere.
You racist and jealous hearted people might as well get over yourselves b/c Obama will be our next POTUS
Well said Obama! I couldn't agree more.
/***
Oh, thats right.., terrorism is not related to the war in Iraq for the dems. No, no relation here…
***/
Spinstarter: I know this is tough for you, but try and keep up: 9-11 <=== do you actually comprehend "9-11" – NOT terrorism in jail – is not related to the war in Iraq.
Glad to see you're in typical inarticulate form.