http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/07/60minutes/main3804268_page2.shtml
I thought Obama said that when he's President that he would begin pulling us out of Iraq immediately and that he was opposed to our being in Iraq. But in a 60 minutes interview he seemed to be a bit less committed.
"At a time when American casualties are down, at a time when the violence is down, particularly affecting the Iraqi population, is that the right time to try and set time tables for withdrawing all American troops? I mean you talked about...the end of 2009," Kroft remarked.
"Yeah, absolutely. I think now is precisely the time. I think that it is very important for us to send a clear signal to the Iraqis that we are not gonna be here permanently. We're not gonna set up permanent bases. That they are going to have to resolve their differences and get their country functioning," Obama said.
"And you pull out according to that time table, regardless of the situation? Even if there's serious sectarian violence?" Kroft asked.
"No, I always reserve as commander in chief, the right to assess the situation," Obama replied.
So which is it are we out or not? Not too long ago Him Clinton and Edwards were asked this question and he was commited to us leaving while the other two said they would wait till they had more info after they were elected.
we can all arm chair it with what we get from the news but there is still alot we don't know about and maybe Obama is realizing that too.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 21
Bingo! I have been saying this since my husband was in Iraq.
Face it, too much is still unknown about Obama. He's too inexperienced to be President in a dangerous world like this one.
"If you ppl want a President that is SO hell bent on doing something that he's not capable of changing his mind to make the RIGHT decision, then go vote for GW Bush again. "
You nimrod!
President Bush is limited to two terms by the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. You do remember that little piece of paper you keep referring to, don't you? ::shaking head::..........what an idiot!
Hey dillrod! You said it, not me. You're the one who looks stupid because you didn't even realize that this election has NOTHING to do with Mr. Bush. How can you be so ignorant?
To undo ALL the awful things he has done to this once great country.
Chime right in with your stupidity.
This election isn't about Mr. Bush. We have a whole new crop of candidates, or have you pulled your head out of your nether regions long enough see its 2008?
Bush-McCain is running against Obama. Gives you a warm feeling, doesn't it?
And that is only going to become clearer as the Congress finally gets a last-minute injection of courage and defies the Lame Duck "AWOL in Chief" about his over-reaching of the Constitution.
The huge surge in Democratic voters, Democratic fund-raising, the "retirement" of 30+ Republicans from Congress (only six of which were under investigation), and the unprecedented tide of Democrats out-numbering Republicans in every primary contest, shows that the demand for "change" is all about the miserable failure in the White House.
After January, when No Child is amended into a decent piece of legislation, compromise is reached on the deceitful "tax cuts", and a time-table is set for withdrawal from Iraq -the only "legacy" of the Bush years will be corruption and inefficiency.
Unprecedented failure at every level of the Executive branch.
There will be revelations and convictions right through 2010.
Happy days are here again.