Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
Not on purpose.. after looking at the link and the google search for those words, it's obviously the title of the USAToday article was what was "".
I expect the answer was in response to a question and that's why the title was created. Do you believe he did not feel that way about Iraq.
Here are the first two paragraphs including a quote that seemingly is responding to this question.
So although that wasn't a direct quote out of his mouth, it was an accurate article it appears. I stand by the flip-flop.
|
if you want to understand a person's position, it would be much more accurate to not parse their words but look at the complete statement:
"Nobody is proposing we leave precipitously. There are still going to be U.S. forces in the region that could intercede, with an international force, on an emergency basis," Obama said between stops on the first of two days scheduled on the New Hampshire campaign trail. "There's no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there."
The greater risk is staying in Iraq, Obama said.
"It is my assessment that those risks are even greater if we continue to occupy Iraq and serve as a magnet for not only terrorist activity but also irresponsible behavior by Iraqi factions," he said.
The senator has been a fierce critic of the war in Iraq, speaking out against it even before he was elected to his post in 2004. He was among the senators who tried unsuccessfully earlier this week to force President Bush's hand and begin to limit the role of U.S. forces there.
"We have not lost a military battle in Iraq. So when people say if we leave, we will lose, they're asking the wrong question," he said. "We cannot achieve a stable Iraq with a military. We could be fighting there for the next decade."
Obama said the answer to Iraq — and other civil conflicts — lies in diplomacy.
"When you have civil conflict like this, military efforts and protective forces can play an important role, especially if they're under an international mandate as opposed to simply a U.S. mandate. But you can't solve the underlying problem at the end of a barrel of a gun," he said. "There's got to be a deliberate and constant diplomatic effort to get the various factions to recognize that they are better off arriving at a peaceful resolution of their conflicts."
the use of the phrase "genocide" in the title is questionable, especially when obama uses the phrase "civil conflict".
it's clear that he isn't saying the us (and the international community) should turn a blind eye to genocide.
so no, there'sno basis for your attempt at a "gothcha".
the good question is if you disagree with anything that obama has said (meaning his actual words mind you) in either of the articles....I sure don't find any fault with what he has said.