Hello Everyone:

Right below is the CNN transcript from Monday, February 4 where I believe that Barack Obama clearly tried to have it both ways on the issue of setting a timetable for withdrawing our troops from Iraq!

Here is what Obama said about setting a timetable for withdrawing our troops from Iraq where I think that he is trying to have it both ways from the transcript below:

BLITZER "Let's start with Iraq. You want all U.S. combat forces out of Iraq within 16 months. She says she would start withdrawing combat forces within 60 days but she is not willing to give an end date, a timeline when that withdrawal would be complete.

Are you sure you want to tie your hands to that 16-month date if you're president of the United States? You don't know what's going to happen over the next 16 months.

OBAMA: Of course you don't know. And I will always reserve the right to make adjustments in strategy as we go along.

But what I know is this. If you do not send a strong signal to the Iraqi government, the Kurds, the Shia and the Sunni, that we are not going to have a permanent occupation there and permanent bases, if we are not sending a signal to them that we are not going to be involved in a perpetual process of sending more and more troops and resources into Iraq, they will not stand up and take responsibility.

So, this is a difference between myself and Senator Clinton. I think that you've got to at least set a timetable for withdrawal..."

At the beginning, Barack Obama did not deny Wolf Blitzer's statement that "You want all U.S. combat forces out of Iraq within 16 months," Obama then went on to try and leave some room to back out of this by saying "And I will always reserve the right to make adjustments in strategy as we go along," and then after that Obama went on to assert that he is FOR a timetable when he said "I think that you've got to at least set a timetable for withdrawal."

The bottom line to this as far as I am concerned is that Obama saying "I think that you've got to at least set a timetable for withdrawal" and also saying about this "And I will always reserve the right to make adjustments in strategy as we go along" is that he is trying to have it both ways on the issue of setting a timetable for withdrawing our troops from Iraq!

Obama is talking about this timetable which would be nice to keep and is very convenient to campaign on in a Democratic primary BUT he is clearly leaving some room for himself to get out of it if he does not think that he can do it!

I definitely think that John McCain will nail Obama on this issue in the general election IF Obama is the nominee!

As I have already documented, Gen. Clark is NOT for timetables on the issue of withdrawing our troops from Iraq and Hillary in my opinion is definitely much closer to Gen. Clark's views on Iraq than Obama is:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14600

ANALYSIS: Hillary is much closer to Gen. Clark's views on Iraq than Obama is!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 4, 2008 - 6:56am.

I also think that Obama tried to have it both ways on the issue of "meeting with adversaries directly without preconditions, whether Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chavez or Kim Jong Il" when Wolf Blitzer asked him this in the transcript below and when Obama replied to that by saying "I have been absolutely clear on this. I will meet not just with our friends but with our enemies. I will meet without preconditions.

That does not mean I will meet without preparation..."

A very fair question that I would like to hear explained by Obama is what is the difference between "preconditions" and "preparation?"

What specifically is the "preparation" that Obama WILL REQUIRE to meet with Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, or Kim Jong Il without "preconditions" that he WILL NOT REQUIRE?

Obama in my opinion is clearly trying to have it both ways on this issue because if he does meet with a leader who he does not like, then he can say that he kept his promise. However if he does not meet with a leader who he does not like for whatever reason, then he can say that the preparation was not right or something along that line!

All Democratic primary voters in my opinion should definitely consider these points and should also be fully aware of what will more than likely come up in the general election about Obama and foreign policy BEFORE this primary is over!

Mitch Dworkin

http://www.securingamerica.com/

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10756
StopIranWar.com: "War is not the answer"
Submitted by Wes Clark on February 21, 2007 - 11:40am.

http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!

--------------------

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/04/sitroom.03.html

THE SITUATION ROOM

Who Will Win Super Tuesday?; Interview With Illinois Senator Barack Obama

Aired February 4, 2008 - 18:00 ET

BLITZER: And joining us now from New Jersey, the Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama.

Senator Obama, thanks very much for coming in.

OBAMA: How are you, Wolf?

BLITZER I'm excellent. Thank you very much. I know you're very busy.

Let's get right to some of the issues that potentially could separate you from Hillary Clinton right now. I'm trying to hone in on these issues, so that voters out there have a better understanding where you stand as opposed to where she stands.

Let's start with Iraq. You want all U.S. combat forces out of Iraq within 16 months. She says she would start withdrawing combat forces within 60 days but she is not willing to give an end date, a timeline when that withdrawal would be complete.

Are you sure you want to tie your hands to that 16-month date if you're president of the United States? You don't know what's going to happen over the next 16 months.

OBAMA: Of course you don't know. And I will always reserve the right to make adjustments in strategy as we go along.

But what I know is this. If you do not send a strong signal to the Iraqi government, the Kurds, the Shia and the Sunni, that we are not going to have a permanent occupation there and permanent bases, if we are not sending a signal to them that we are not going to be involved in a perpetual process of sending more and more troops and resources into Iraq, they will not stand up and take responsibility.

So, this is a difference between myself and Senator Clinton. I think that you've got to at least set a timetable for withdrawal. I think there is another difference. And that is that Senator Clinton has suggested that the interest of blunting Iran's influence in Iraq is a justification for maintaining a larger force structure inside of Iraq.

I think that that is a mistake. I think that is mission creep. I think that what we have to do is focus on direct talks with Iran, as well as other powers in the region, like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, initiate the kind of diplomatic meeting of the minds that's going to be required to stabilize the country.

But understand, Wolf, George Bush's budget just showed that our costs in Iraq have gone up -- have doubled in the last three years. So although obviously the most important issue has to do with the lives lost and the young men and women who have been severely injured in the war, this is also economically unsustainable and not making us more safe. And one of the questions that we brought up in the debate on Tuesday is, who's going to be in a better position to argue for a new direction on Iraq, myself or Senator Clinton? When it goes -- when I'm going after John McCain, I think I'm going to be in a much better position to do so.

BLITZER: I'm going to get to that, but I just want to leave it open -- nail this down. If the 16-month deadline that you've imposed, if you see that there is a need for some flexibility, you are open to that; is that right?

OBAMA: Wolf, my job will be to keep the American people safe as commander in chief, and I will make decisions on the basis of what's required to keep them safe.

But I believe right now -- and I think a lot of people, not just here in the United States, but around the world, agree -- that we cannot simply maintain the sort of open-ended approach that people like John McCain have advocated.

BLITZER: And explain what your position is, exactly, on meeting with adversaries directly without preconditions, whether Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chavez or Kim Jong Il, because there has been some confusion. Would you meet unconditionally with these other leaders?

OBAMA: There has been no confusion. I have been absolutely clear on this. I will meet not just with our friends but with our enemies. I will meet without preconditions.

That does not mean I will meet without preparation. It is very important before any meeting to make sure that there is a list of agenda items that we are going to be talking about. But the difference is with me, for example, meeting with Iran, I would not expect that they would give in on critical issues like nuclear weapons before the meeting. The objective of the meeting would be to ensure that they stand down and that we've offered them carrots and sticks.

The Bush's administration's approach has been to say, unless they agree with everything we say ahead of time, we won't meet. That is a doomed policy. The National Intelligence Estimate, our 16 top intelligence organizations, have themselves indicated that the Iranian leadership responds to both carrots and sticks and that we should be engaging in direct talks. That's the kind of leadership I want to show as president of the United States.

BLITZER: Would that also include possibly visiting those countries? Going to Tehran, or Havana or -- and meeting with those leaders?

OBAMA: I don't want to sort of lay out the details of a trip. The point is, we would initiate direct talks with them. And I believe that our president is also the person who has to make significant breakthroughs. That's been true in the past, when Nixon went to China, when Reagan met with Gorbachev. That has always been our approach. This is not something unique. What's been unique is the span of time with the Bush-Cheney approach where you don't talk to your adversaries. That is not a sign of strength. That's a sign of weakness. I want to reverse it as president of the United States.

BLITZER: John McCain says -- he has been in the U.S. Congress, the House and the Senate, for 26 years. You've been in the Senate, you will have been in the Senate for four years, eight years in the state legislature in Illinois. He says, when it comes to national security, he is so much better prepared than you are. What do you say to John McCain?

OBAMA: Well, look, I honor John McCain's half-a-century of service to this country. And I think that it's something that we have to all honor, because he's been a war hero, and I think he's done good work in the Senate.

But the fact of the matter is that John McCain is not the person who is going to lead this country in a new direction. He is wrong on foreign policy. He is wrong on economics. He essentially wants to perpetuate the same failed economic strategies of George Bush by providing tax cuts to the wealthy, as opposed to working families who need relief.

He wants to continue the failed foreign policy of leaving our troops in Iraq, potentially for another decade, another two decades, another four decades, or five. That is not what the American people are looking for. They're looking for a fundamentally different approach, particularly on the economy right now.

People need help. They're worried about losing their homes. They're worried about losing their jobs. They can't send their kids to college. They can't pay for gas at the pump. They're having trouble affording milk in the grocery store. And the notion that we will just continue with the same Bush policies that got us into this mess in the first place, I think, is something that the American people simply will not buy. That's what John McCain is offering.

BLITZER: Senator Obama, thanks very much for joining us.

OBAMA: Thank you, Wolf. Take care.