I wish we had more choices...
Hillary has been seen going around Auburn Ala. writting the leter "G" in front of Obama to make it say Go Bama in order to steer the vote towards her. I love that one.
I understand your frustration with the 2 party system and the believed control the democrats/republicans have over it but I personally believe it's an illusion and ruse. Don't be afraid to look at 3rd party choices and IMO this election is an example of there being no real clear differences between the 3 candidates when you honestly look at their records.
For example:
Healthcare, with all 3 there may be suttle differences but in the end there will be some kind of gov't mandate, gov't growth and less open free market.
Immigration, lots of talk but inthe end nothing will change.
War on Terror, McCain and Hillary are easy because their records are so overpowering. No change between those 2 at all. One reason Hillary is loosing to Obama is she is seen as really Pro-War. But what about Obama? Before he came to Washington and was an Ill. State Senator, he was clearly and vocally anti-war. However, since he's come to Washington he's voted for continuing war funding
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=2970930&page=2
And
Leave troops for protection of Americans & counterterrorism
The first thing I will do is initiate a phased redeployment. Military personnel indicate we can get one brigade to two brigades out per month. I would immediately begin that process. We would get combat troops out of Iraq. The only troops that would remain would be those that have to protect US bases and US civilians, as well as to engage in counterterrorism activities in Iraq.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College Sep 26, 2007
so troops would stay to "protect US assets" ie bases and civilian contractors and here's the real kicker "engage in counterterrorism activities in Iraq." Now that one line proves to me the most interesting of all. This is the sounds of someone totally committed to an antiwar stance? OK, so you still think he'd pull them all out? Well he had his chance to make that committment to the public but instead refused to go that far.
Q: Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, there will be no US troops in Iraq?
A: I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises, not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out. Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College Sep 26, 2007
If you are committed to an antiwar stance, everyone comes home, period!
What about Pakistan?
Here's an interesting Q & A with Obama.
Q: If you get us out of Iraq and somehow al Qaeda takes over anyway, what will you do then?
A: Well, look, if we had followed my judgment originally, we wouldn't have been in Iraq. We're here now. And we've got no good options. We got bad options and worse options. The only way we're going to stabilize Iraq and make sure that al Qaeda does not take over in the long term is to begin a phased redeployment so that we don't have anti-American sentiment as a focal point for al Qaeda in Iraq. We can still have troops in the region, outside of Iraq, that can help on counterterrorism activities, and we've got to make sure that they don't establish long-term bases there. But right now, the bases are in Afghanistan and in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan; that's where we've got to focus. Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 8, 2007
Redeployment to where? If antiwar it would be "I'll bring the troops home!" but instead he spoke of "we can still have troops in the region, outside of Iraq" Where at Mr. Senator?
What about Pakistan!
Let's start with this. The question goes first to Sen. Clinton and then a followup to Sen Obama.
Q: [to Clinton]: You criticized Sen. Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons against Al Qaida in Pakistan, yet you said the same against Bush's use of tactical nuclear weapons in Iran, saying: "I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table." What's the difference there?
CLINTON: I was asked specifically about the Bush-Cheney administration's policy to drum up support for military action against Iran. Combine that with their continuing effort to try to get "bunker-buster" nuclear bombs that could penetrate into the earth to go after deeply buried nuclear sites. This was not a hypothetical, this was a brushback against this administration which has been reckless and provocative.
Q: Do you accept that distinction?
OBAMA: There was no difference. It is not hypothetical that Al Qaida has established base camps in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan. No military expert would advise that we use nuclear weapons to deal with them, but we do have to deal with that problem. Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate on "This Week" Aug 19, 2007
OK, my question would be, how would you deal with them? and Where again would you deploy the troops? OK, let's see if we again can figure this out.
OBAMA: We know right now, according to the National Intelligence Estimate, that al Qaeda is hiding in the hills between Afghanistan & Pakistan. And because we have taken our eye off the ball, they are stronger now than any time since 2001. As president, I want us to fight on the right battlefield, and what that means is getting out Iraq and refocusing our attention on the war that can be one in Afghanistan. And that also will allow us to free up the kinds of resources that will make us safer here at home because we'll be able to invest in port security, chemical plant security, all the critical issues that have already been discussed.
Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 8, 2007
continuing:
Q: [to Dodd]: If we have actionable intelligence on al Qaeda operatives, including bin Laden, [within Pakistan], and President Musharraf cannot act, then we should. Now, I think that's just common sense. For us to authorize [military action in Iraq] where the people who attacked 3,000 Americans were not present--which you authorized--and then to suggest that somehow we should not focus on the folks that did attack 3,000 Americans, [al Qaeda in Pakistan, makes no sense].
DODD: It was a mistake to suggest somehow that going in unilaterally here into Pakistan was somehow in our interest. That is dangerous. And I don't retreat from that at all.
OBAMA: I did not say that we would immediately go in unilaterally. What I said was that we have to work with Musharraf, because the biggest threat to American security right now are in the northwest provinces of Pakistan and that we should continue to give him military aid contingent on him doing something about that. Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 8, 2007
Does Obama really want to go into Pakistan?
FactCheck: Yes, Obama said invade Pakistan to get al Qaeda
Sen. Obama rewrote history when he defended his controversial remarks about invading Pakistan if necessary to eliminate al Qaeda, saying, "I did not say that we would immediately go in unilaterally. What I said was that we have to work with [Pakistan's President Pervez] Musharraf."
That's not exactly what he said. Obama is referring to an Aug. 1 policy address, in which he made no direct mention of working with Musharraf. Instead, he said he would "take out" al Qaeda if Musharraf failed to act.
Obama (Aug. 1):
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 7, 2007
For anyone to think Barack Obama is antiwar or opposed to war then let him/her not think that way any longer. Boiling this down, Barack will redeploy the troops to Afghanistan/Pakistan with a troop presence left in Iraq.
So you see Bad Gas, in the end the 3 candidates really don't differ at all but you've been sold an illusion by policy wonks hoping to protect self-interest political control. Don't be so quick to play their game.
has called into question the MoveOn endorsement of Obama on the grounds he's anti Iraq war. Although the piece is preaching to the choir with me, I thought others might find the op-ed of interest especially those here thinking of voting for him with this issue in mind.
