Obama: 'We're Not Going To Babysit A Civil War'

[sabra]

http://www.wbbm780.com/pages/182236.php?contentType=4&contentId=287727

Obama: 'We're Not Going To Babysit A Civil War'


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration is working to persuade a skeptical Democratic-led Congress to accept the president's announced troop buildup as the last best chance for reversing Iraq's slide into anarchy.

...

"We're not going to baby sit a civil war," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told NBC's "Today" Show Thursday. He said the Democratic-controlled Congress would not undercut troops already in Iraq but would explore ways to restrict the president from expanding the mission.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told CBS' "The Early Show" that since the new Democratic-led Congress convened last week, "questions are now being asked of this administration that haven't been asked for almost four years."

[blm]

1. Glad to hear that formerly reluctant Dems are now noticing it IS a civil war.

Everyone in DC knew it was civil war at the beginnning of last year, but were loathe to admit it publicly or support a withdrawal plan last June that was written BECAUSE of the reality of Iraq's civil war.

[OKNancy]

4. I don't recall that Obama was a "formerly reluctant Dem"

who didn't notice the civil war. In fact, unlike other Senators, he was against the war from the beginning.

[blm]

7. Reluctant to USE the term civil war for most of last year, as most Dems were.

I am glad it's being used now, because acknowledging reality of civil war means that a new authorization is necessary, as there is no authorized mission that includes civil war.

The reality of civil war in Iraq was the reason that a withdrawal plan for Iraq was submitted to the senate and voted on last June.

[rebel with a cause]

12. So was Durbin

He was one of the few Senators to vote against giving bush the power to go to war without Congress's approval. As an Illinoisan, I am proud.

[lancdem]

2. I love that Obama quote

and Durbin's too.

[Kagemusha]

3. I agree, Obama understands this and is putting it well.

I mean, everything I'm reading this morning says that the US is giving Maliki a longer leash, with lots of babysitters at all levels (like Russian political officers) and battalions ready to intervene if the Iraqi Army fights the civil war and not the War on Terror.

[Robbien]

5. Not so here in Chicago, Obama is coming across as

trying to out triangulate the triangulation master Clinton. He cannot just say no to the Bush Surge. First he says how important it is we fight this war, then says he doesn't want to babysit it.

I just want to smack him.

[Kagemusha]

6. What you're saying sounds nothing like the quote so I can't really comment

Obama hasn't been nearly so strong-sounding about this in the past. If this is a new trend, I just want him to be consistent about it and keep going.

[Robbien]

8. He is not sounding strong about it

He has been on every news show here all night and morning long. Each time I hear him I have no idea where he firmly stands.

This babysitting quote is one of the strongest statements Obama has said against the Bush Surge. To me the babysitting quote is a pretty soft statement.

It pisses me off because I spent many many hours working for his campaign and really believed in him. Now all he does is triangulate.

[rebel with a cause]

15. I worked for Obama in 2004 also

and that was in the Southern part of the state where being a democrat is not so popular. I don't mean to insult you, but I think you are over reacting just a bit. I was one of the few who got mad at Durbin's comments last night and I said so, but it does not mean that on the whole I don't still stand behind him. Obama is trying to be diplomatic in a time when the media is wanting to bait someone into saying the wrong thing and getting a good old political attack going on someone besides just the president. It is also a time when the people (myself included) wants someone to stand up and say "this SOB bush is a screw up and we are tired of having to deal with his screw ups". But that is not going to happen. The democrats are walking on a tight wire, having to be careful of everything they say and do, because they know the administratiion (rove) is looking for any way they can get to turn this back on them. Think about it, watch and see what they do for the next few weeks (maybe not that long), and if they turn belly side up, then attack away, and I will be right there with you.

[VegasWolf]

9. We're not babysitting a civil war, we're babysitting the oil wells. nt

[Tellurian]

10. Exactly, the Middle East is blowing up in Bush's face..nm

[Megahurtz]

14. People tend to forget what the Real Reason is.

[nebula]

11. There's no such thing as honesty in either party

Saying what everyone (except US politicians apparently) has known for years is a civil war is easy.

Genuine honesty requires admitting to the real purpose of the war.

That its a war for oil profits more than anything else.

[superconnected]

13. Go Barack!

[Mechatanketra]

16. Sigh.

It's really disturbing how deeply everyone seems to have internalized the WH's theory of inherent presidential military power, instead of recognizing that he's only "commander in chief" when it's relevant to have a commander. War power is invested by the Constitution in Congress.

Here's how you "restrict the president from expanding the mission":
1) You corner every Republican congressman who so much as twitches with nervousness when they see those 70% disapproval polls for the war, and remind them that Bush is a lame duck.
2) You submit a bill rescinding the activation of the President's war powers and giving him a deadline to order troops out of the field, and put teeth in it — explicitly define defiance of the bill as a federal crime, spelling out penalties for breaking the law it will become.
3) If necessary (aw, who am I kidding? It will be necessary.) you lean on the aforementioned war-nervous GOP (like Hagel) to give you the supermajority to pass it over Bush's veto.

Will this be easy? No. But it is the obvious and direct solution; it should at least get a lip service mention now and then. Congress has the power to revoke Bush's power — and bring the troops home.

[crickets]

17. I like the way you think. :) nt

[Patchuli]

25. Great post.

You put that right in a nice, neat nutshell. Thanks!

[iverglas]

18. Durbin and Obama

Never heard of Durbin before up here in the balmy white north, but watched him and Obama on the teevee last night, and found it pretty much impossible to distinguish between them and Bush.

Blame the victim. That's the ticket.

Invade the country, destroy its infrastructure, create a violent and lawless society ... and then demand that the victims stop being so irresponsible, or you won't be, er, helping them anymore.

Disgusting, all round.

[rebel with a cause]

19. From Illinois and they are my senators

While I got very angry last night at the message, I have had time to think about it.

Durbin is usually ultra liberal, and what he said last night shocked the he double-ls out of me. Then I thought about it and said, ok this might have been to make the democrats seem strong and it might have been a double message. One that the people on MSNBC loved, including Keith O. And one that means the guys have to come home. That pleases the masses. Staying there longer is not going to heal anything. We need to pull out and take those private contractors and corporations with us. We need to do something to help the Iraq nation rebuild. "We broke it, we need to pay for it." What is the best way to do that, I don't know, but it not militarily. This is the way we tore the country down, and our continued presence is helping it to continue.

Obama is trying to be diplomatic. He said, and I hope I have this right, blame the Iraqi first. I believe he was referring to bush trying to blame Iran and Syria. I think he meant that we must concentrate on getting peace among the Iraqis and not be going over to Iran and Syria trying to engage them in anyway except maybe talks. This is what I think he was referring to. I don't know, only giving him the benefit of a doubt right now.

Why would I do this. Because they were both against the Iraq war in the beginning. Durbin voted against it. Durbin has been one of the biggest thorns in bush's side and one of the most outspoken against him. He has spoken often on the Senate floor about the Iraqis killed in this war along with our soldiers. Obama has spoken out on these issues also. I think last night they were walking a tight rope, trying to keep as many people happy with the democrats as possible. I will take a few days, maybe weeks and see what happens. Because I know in the past both men have been better than this.

Any way, that is a little on who Durbin and Obama are.

[iverglas]

20. thanks

I appreciate the comments from you and others in this thread who were put off by their remarks as well.

In watching US politics/politicians from outside the US's borders, one tries to keep in mind the audience that such comments are directed to, but cannot help but wonder what might happen if someone just came out and said the right thing occasionally!

[Hoping4Change]

21. Frankly I think Obama is giving aid and comfort to the enemy (ie

repukes). Its all well and good to advocate troop withdrawl but why is Obama echoing repuke sentiments about not mollycoddling Iraqis? America is after all 100% responsible for the current situation in Iraq. What happened to the notion if you break, you have to fix it? :wtf:

[AtomicKitten]

22. If his position to date holds,

I predict Obama will a leader on ending the war.

[Zhade]

23. Um, while I applaud the idea of LEAVING, what a shitty way to put it.

As if we're doing the Iraqis a fucking FAVOR.

It's the same as that racist White Man's Burden "they won't stand up" bullshit.

[sarcasmo]

24. Kick.

[leesa]

26. What an ass. We started this mess, now we blame and insult our victims.