Quote Originally Posted by dragonrider
The original Obama statement was in response to a hypothetical question by Tim Russert. The question was something like, "If we were to pull our troops out of Iraq, and then the situation were to deteriorate, then would you reserve the right to go back in." I think I saw another thread here somewhere about Clinton getting slammed about not wanting to answer a hypothetical scenario, and now you can see why. Obama answers the hypothetical question that ingores Al Qaida being in Iraq, and now he gets characterized as thinking there is no Al Qaida in Iraq. It's the question that ignored Al Qaida in Iraq, not Obama --- you can't criticise Obama for answering a bogus hypothetical that ignores reality --- criticsie Russert for framing the question that way.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama, I want you to respond to not holding oversight for your subcommittee. But also, do you reserve a right as American president to go back into Iraq, once you have withdrawn, with sizable troops in order to quell any kind of insurrection or civil war?

SEN. OBAMA: Now, I always reserve the right for the president -- as commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad. So that is true, I think, not just in Iraq, but that's true in other places. That's part of my argument with respect to Pakistan.

The question...the answer...and yes, he should be mocked. How many times do we put a sizable number of troops in just to pull them out again? It's one of two choices:
1) Stay with it and get the job done.
2) Pull every last soldier, civilian worker, diplomat, etc...the hell out of there and leave it for shit.

You can't try to do the "right" thing while at the same time appeasing the "left".

Don't like the war? Want us out for good? Vote Nader "08"!

Have a good one!:s4: