Obama statement

[MtnBiker]

"I am absolutely committed to ending the war. I will call my joint chiefs of staff in and give them a new assignment and that is to end the war."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25548545/

Is there anything wrong with this statement?

[5stringJeff]

Legally, no, although he'd likely call in his SecDef first.

Politically, it's naive to think that all hostilities will cease on 20 January. It will take months to move all our troops out of Iraq.

[bullypulpit]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25548545/

Is there anything wrong with this statement?

Not particularly, especially given that Nouri al-Maliki has called for a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and an end to foreign occupation.

[bullypulpit]

Legally, no, although he'd likely call in his SecDef first.

Politically, it's naive to think that all hostilities will cease on 20 January. It will take months to move all our troops out of Iraq.

Indeed, Obama has recognized the need for a phased withdrawal. Best estimates, from purely logistical standpoint, are 16 to 24 months.

[MtnBiker]

July 07, 2008
Obama's lack of understanding exposed again
Thomas Lifson
Dean Barnett noticed a stunning level of ignorance by Barack Obama about the command structure he seeks to head as commander-in-chief and blogged about it at The Weekly Standard.


When Obama held his second press conference late last week to address his ever more slippery position on withdrawing troops from Iraq, he stated:


"I am absolutely committed to ending the war," the longtime community organizer declared. "I will call my Joint Chiefs of Staff in and give them a new assignment and that is to end the war."


Barnett explains well the role of Joint Chefs as a staff unit, which provides advice to the commander-in-chief. In order to avoid conflicts within their respective services and provide clear advice, the joint chiefs are by law excluded from the command structure. The command structure (what is called the "line" part of the organization in corporate organizations) consists of people like General Petraeus, who actually run the military organization through its structure of commands. Barnett comments sarcastically:


Surely Obama knows this. Obviously he wouldn't be seeking the role of Commander-in-Chief without knowing how the job is done.


Obama has such a naive view of running organizations that he doesn't appreciate way they actually work. Just call in the guys with braids on their uniforms and give orders.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...7/post_95.html

It is reasonable to assume for someone with such little experience as Obama that such a mistake could happen.

[Yurt]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...7/post_95.html

It is reasonable to assume for someone with such little experience as Obama that such a mistake could happen.

if he would not have gotten such a free pass in the press during the primaries, it is highly possible that he would not have won. his ignorance and dishonesty is so in your face that i think many people are in denial...those that blindly support him...or they hate bush so bad that they will do anything to make sure a republican is not elected come november

party over country

[Little-Acorn]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25548545/

Is there anything wrong with this statement?

Aside from the Joint Chiefs flub, no... except that he carefully omits to explain HOW they will end the war. By winning it and then withdrawing? Or simply by withdrawing, leaving the enemy in the field free to move in and take over (this is called "losing")?

I suspect it is a carefully contrived omission. No matter which course he takes in the future, he can claim that he did what he promised in July 2008.

In other words, the statement means NOTHING. He can later claim it meant whatever course he eventually takes.

[retiredman]

exactly. He will certainly talk to his secdef first. However, If he wants to talk to the top dog in the army and give him and the secdef guidance on troop withdrawals, he is going to talk to George Casey, who is a member of the joint chiefs.

[MtnBiker]

I am absolutely committed to ending the war. I will call my joint chiefs of staff in and give them a new assignment and that is to end the war

Barnett explains well the role of Joint Chefs as a staff unit, which provides advice to the commander-in-chief. In order to avoid conflicts within their respective services and provide clear advice, the joint chiefs are by law excluded from the command structure. The command structure (what is called the "line" part of the organization in corporate organizations) consists of people like General Petraeus, who actually run the military organization through its structure of commands.

It is reasonable to assume for someone with such little experience as Obama that such a mistake could happen.

[Little-Acorn]

It is reasonable to assume for someone with such little experience as Obama that such a mistake could happen.

Is it reasonable to vote such an inexperienced person, who makes such appalling mistakes, into the Presidency of the United States?

[retiredman]

Is it reasonable to vote such an inexperienced person, who makes such appalling mistakes, into the Presidency of the United States?

America did in 2000!

[Little-Acorn]

So we have one person (possibly a bot) who agrees that we should not vote Obama into the Presidency.

Anyone else agree?

[avatar4321]

America did in 2000!

You complain about President Bush when his resume is a lot fuller than Senator Obama's resume?

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

America did in 2000!

But Thank God Al Gore Didn't Get to Screw America up Worse then Bush Has

[retiredman]

You complain about President Bush when his resume is a lot fuller than Senator Obama's resume?

I disagree. Bush's resume has some failed business dealings and two terms as a figurehead governor. Obama's has solid community organizing, law schood instruction, state senate and now US senate.