HOME / slate fare: The inner workings of Slate.

The Great Presidential MashupThe Democrats on Iraq.

Posted Friday, Sept. 7, 2007, at 10:23 AM ET

(Continued from page 3)

RSS

CNN/ YouTube Debate, July 23, 2007

I believed in duty and honor, and I think it's important to have those commitments to this country. And so I say we achieve strength through peace. That's the new doctrine that I'm going to promote throughout this campaign; that we'll use the science of human relations and diplomacy; that we pursue an approach which says that you can use international agreements and treaties; and that you can work to settle your differences without committing the young men and women to war, unless it's absolutely necessary.

The answer to your question, ma'am, is: Yes, it is politics. The Democrats have failed the American people. When we took over in January, the American people didn't expect us to give them a Democratic version of the war. They expected us to act quickly to end the war.

Here's how we can do it. It doesn't take legislation. That's a phony excuse to say that you don't have the votes. We appropriated $97 billion a month ago. We should tell President Bush, no more funds for the war, use that money to bring the troops home, use it to bring the troops home.

I've been very clear: six months, but no residual forces.

Our troops have become targets.

The diplomatic work cannot begin to heal Iraq, to protect our interests, without troops out. Our troops have become targets. You are going to say six months, because it might provoke a civil war. There is a civil war. There is sectarian conflict. The time has come, and I get challenged. I have no troops left. One hundred are dying a month.

The underlying assumption here is that we're going to be in Iraq until the next president takes office, and I reject that totally. People can send a message to Congress right now.

I introduced a plan four years ago, Anderson, that was a full plan to remove our troops. I'm the only one on this stage—excuse me—who not only voted against this war, but voted against funding the war.

I think that the reason is that if you support, for example, in Iraq, if you say that Iraq should privatize its oil for the U.S. oil companies, then what you're doing is, you're continuing a commitment to use more oil. If you believe that all options should be put on the table with respect to Iran, that's about oil.

AFL-CIO Debate, Aug. 7, 2007

We need to get out of Iraq and get out of Iraq now, and I have a plan to do just that. Congress—the Democratic Congress—has the ability to tell President Bush, you got $97 billion six weeks ago, use that money to bring the troops home and set in motion an international security and peacekeeping force that would stabilize Iraq. I'm the only one here on the stage who had the vision and the foresight to not only vote against the war but also vote against funding for the war.

I'm working all the time to try to get the Democrats to keep that promise to bring our troops home. I've been there for every single piece of legislation—health care, retirement security, jobs—and I'm going to be there to keep pushing the envelope to get us out of Iraq, and we shouldn't have to wait for a Democratic president to do it.

Sen. Barack Obama

South Carolina Debate, April 26, 2007

I am proud that I opposed this war from the start, because I thought that it would lead to the disastrous conditions that we've seen on the ground in Iraq. What I've also said is, if we're going to send hundreds of thousands of our young men and women there, then they have to have the night-vision goggles, the Humvees that are reinforced, and the other equipment that they need to make sure that they come home safely.

The American people have said, Republicans and Democrats, that it's time to end this war. When I listen to mothers and fathers all across the country, they are telling me it's time for us to come home.

I'm proud of the fact that I put forward a plan in January that mirrors what Congress ultimately adopted. It says there's no military solution to this. We've got to have a political solution, begin a phased withdrawal, and make certain that we've got benchmarks in place so that the Iraqi people can make a determination about how they want to move forward.

We have seen our Army and our Reserves and our National Guard all being stretched to a breaking point. That's one of the reasons why I proposed that we're going to have to increase the size of our ground forces, so we can stop the sort of rotations that we've been placing them on, which have been putting enormous strain not only on the soldiers themselves, but also their families.

We are one vote away, if the president is not going to sign the bill that has been sent to him, then what we have to do is gather up 16 votes in order to override his veto.

New Hampshire Debate, June 3, 2007

Primarily because of this war in Iraq, a war that I think should have never been authorized or waged, what we've seen is a distraction from the battle to deal with al-Qaida in Afghanistan. We have created an entire new recruitment network in Iraq that we're seeing them send folks to Lebanon and Jordan and other areas of the region. And so one of the things that I think is critical as the next president is to make absolutely certain that we not only phase out the war in Iraq, but we also focus on the critical battle that we have in Afghanistan and rout out al-Qaida.

The effort in Iraq has greatly weakened our efforts there.

The best way for us to support the troops is to ensure that we are not continuing to try to impose a military solution on what is essentially a political problem in Iraq. And that's why I put forward a bill that would begin a phased redeployment and have all our troops out by March 31^st of next year.

I don't believe in assassinations, but Osama Bin Laden has declared war on us, killed 3,000 people, and under existing law, including international law, when you've got a military target like Bin Laden, you take him out. And if you have 20 minutes, you do it swiftly and surely.

Our presence in Iraq is weakening our capacity to deal with these issues and fanning anti-American sentiment in such a way that it makes it more difficult for Musharraf to work with us effectively.

CNN/YouTube Debate, July 23, 2007

I opposed this war from the start. Because I anticipated that we would be creating the kind of sectarian violence that we've seen and that it would distract us from the war on terror.

At this point, I think we can be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. But we have to send a clear message to the Iraqi government as well as to the surrounding neighbors that there is no military solution to the problems that we face in Iraq. We just heard a White House spokesman, Tony Snow, excuse the fact that the Iraqi legislature went on vacation for three weeks because it's hot in Baghdad. Well, let me tell you: It is hot for American troops who are over there with 100 pounds' worth of gear.

Our soldiers have done everything that's been asked of them. They deposed Saddam Hussein. They have carried out extraordinarily difficult missions with great courage and great bravery. That is something that too many of us failed to do. And I do think that that is something that both Republicans and Democrats have to take responsibility for.

When I am president of the United States, when I send our troops into battle, I am going to be absolutely sure that it is based on sound intelligence, and I'm going to tell the truth to the American people, as well as the families who are being asked to sacrifice.

AFL-CIO Debate, Aug. 7, 2007

I don't believe that we are safer now than we were after 9/11 because we have made a series of terrible decisions in our foreign policy. We went into Iraq, a war that we should have never authorized and should not have been waged. It has fanned the flames of anti-American sentiment. It has, more importantly, allowed us to neglect the situation in Afghanistan. We know right now, according to the National Intelligence Estimate, that al-Qaida is hiding in the hills between Afghanistan and 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 of Iraq and refocusing our attention on the war that can be won 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.

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've got bad options and worse options.

It is my strong belief—and I introduced legislation back in January—that the only way we're going to stabilize Iraq and make sure that al-Qaida 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-Qaida 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.