I'm not sure I understand you. What is wrong with that reaction?

Nothing wrong with that at all.

He will make a greaat leader.

Go Obama!

Paul,

Didn't mean to suggest disapproval. Perhaps I write so often with the inflection of sarcasm or skepticism that nothing I write is taken in earnest. I actually, genuinely meant that I would let the reader decide for themselves if they are comfortable with Obama's statement. There's so much to unpack in there that I assumed each person reading would have their own unique reaction.

Hey capt, how've you been?
I've been on this board a little less in recent weeks. Glad to see you're still raising hell [or at least still throwing your two cents in...]

Well, his response was so thoughtful and earnest it would have to rub some people the wrong way. Just watched the Dixie Chicks documentary, Shut Up and Sing; it was such a reminder of how many idiots there are out there. Still, it was a positive take away for me. [A little off subject perhaps, but meant to add a bit of context to the first sentance.]

Just wanted to add to both of you -- Paul and capt -- that I'm glad you're both still around and hanging out with us. I value your comments and I know others around here do as well.

I keep hoping this is the Obama we'll be putting in the presidency, not the fool who voted for the FISA bill.

Obama says 10K more troops in Afghanistan, plus a "residual" force in Iraq after 2010 (2010!) Can this be viewed as anything other than a continuation of Bush's policies?

Sure it can JG! While I am desperate to see our boneheaded interventionism in Iraq and Afghanistan come to a screeching halt. Yes Afghanistan too, there is no good war folks and there is no risk of the Taliban storming our beaches. The Taliban, although repressive and authoritarian, were a legitimate government. One whose leaders visited the Houston offices of Unocal in 1997 to negotiate pipelines and oil contracts. But regardless, of their merits or lack thereof, and our reasons for invading that nation Obama's NYT oped contained many lines that give me comfort that it will not be business as usual in the White House next year: "They call any timetable for the removal of American troops "surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government. . .We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. . . .[and my personal favorite] . . .I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq."
A continuation of Bush's policies my ass. A new day is coming . . .

If you're thinking what Obama said when he was NOT in a position to carry out his stated position means something as far as what he'll do when he IS in position to follow through on his statements, consider this:

Nov. 16, 2003
Then-Illinois State Senator, and CANDIDATE Obama told a cheering crowd that it was wrong to vote to fund the war.

"Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars, I said 'NO,'" Obama said to applause as he referred to a bill to fund troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"I said no, UNEQUIVOCALLY because, at a certain point, We Have To Say 'NO' to George Bush," Obama said. "If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance."
...
In a questionnaire he completed for the liberal group Council for a Livable World and in a 2003 press release he issued as a state senator, Obama suggested the Congress delay the $87 billion in funding "until the president provides a specific plan and timetable for ending the U.S. occupation, justifies each and every dollar to ensure it is not going to reward Bush political friends and contributors, and provides 'investment in our own schools, health care, economic development and job creation that is at least comparable' to what is going to Iraq."

But at the time, Obama's public statements suggested he opposed voting for the supplement as a way of opposing the president's overall strategy in Iraq...

Obama told the Chicago Sun Times in November 2003 that he opposed the funding because it "enables the Bush administration to continue on a flawed policy without being accountable to the American people."

Regardless of the reason for his initial opposition to funding the war, since taking office two years ago, Obama has voted four times for a war appropriations bill, which together add up to more than $300 billion.

U.S. Senator Obama has yet to "say No" to George Bush on funding his wars, shielding the telecoms from repercussions for having broken the law, or damn near anything in the way of issues of principle.

h_t_t_p_:_/_/abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=2970930&page=1

I do agree with the previous post "Rhetoric vs Reality". After all it didn't take too long for George Bush's "humility" to vanish. And his claim of being a Washington outsider was a joke. Even if Obama were genuine and intends to seriously change the course of American policy, it is likely to be very gradual, possibly insignificant. More likely what seemed absurd from outside, might be the "right" course once you are inside.

Can someone help me understand why, if Obama doesn't plan to continue pursuing our defacto Worldwide Empire, he's making statements like these:

But we need to ease the burden on our troops, while meeting the challenges of the 21st century. That’s why I will call on a new generation of Americans to join our military, and complete the effort to increase our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines.

A call to service must be backed by a sacred trust with anyone who puts on the uniform of the United States. A young person joining our military must know that we’ll only send them into harm’s way when we absolutely must.

h_t_t_p_:_/_/blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/02/obamas-remarks-on-service/?mod=googlenews_wsj

If he's serious about getting us the hell out of Iraq, and withdraws the 150,000+ troops we've got there, and, as he promises, to 'only send them into harm’s way when we absolutely must', then why should we need another 92,000 troops on top of what we already have?
Unless someone is contemplating some occupation forces somewhere?

What "challenges of the 21st century" is he thinking about?
US as World's Police force?
An armed military presence on Our Streets?

Does anyone else find that proposal at all disturbing?

The armed forces are in a sorry state with recruitment standards declining and numbers harder to maintain. Current numbers of personnel are also historically low. Obama's comments don't indicate to me that he's some kind of blood thirsty neocon. Indeed most evidence suggests the opposite.

Obama's comments indicate he wants to increase the size of the Army + Marine Corps by 92,000 souls.
Not just replace the over-extended and over-worked troops we have now.
["That’s why I will call on a new generation of Americans to join our military, and complete the effort to increase our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines."]

I'm wondering why that would be necessary if he really plans to withdraw the 150,000+ currently in Iraq.

Our "standing army" is too big already, and it leads to a seemingly irresistable temptation for our Presidents to have them do something other than just "stand".

Making it even bigger than it already is seems like a very dubious proposition to me.

re: Rhetoric

First off, congrats on gunning for the high school in the McCain troll game. I wish you the best.

Secondly, the reasons Obama wants to increase the size of the standing military make sense: (1) we have too many reservists abroad and not enough full-time soldiers, (2) Our soldiers are serving way too many tours of duty, so we need more soldiers to ease the burden. Even if we withdraw half of our troops tomorrow, we would still need more soldiers to make the frequency and length of their tours of duty more reasonable.

Eh, apparently likes the US in the role of the World's Police Force, as does Militaristic McCain, and apparently Obama as well.
(Armed forces on station in 130 Foreign countries, including substantial forces still in Japan, Korea and Germany, more than half-a-century after our involvement in any armed conflict there, and 2 decades after the Cold War is declared 'over'?)

I don't happen to like that "US Imperial" vision, and I intend to question any proposition from any politician that indicates we will, or should continue in that role.

Eh apparently also thinks that anyone who dares to question Obama must necessarily be supporting McCain, but he(she?) would be wrong in so thinking.

To Eh: An apology.

I really know why I wrote it that way, but let me apologize for writing a reply that spoke about you rather than to you.

That was inconsiderate and uncalled for.

However, I stand by the points made, just the same.

Obama's so called centrist positions came about rather quickly, about a year ago, after 20 years of embracing the far left, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Father Phfleiger, Ayers, etc.. Everyone knows this disingenuous move to the center was to get votes ... not because Obama all of a sudden had a true change of heart, and abandoned 20 years of his true beliefs. So, why does a good portion of the American public buy into to this?
What makes these gullible people think that if he gets elected, we won't be stuck with a bunch of far left extremist socialist policies? After all, Obama has been the most liberal senator in congress, and Joe Biden has been the third most liberal senator in congress. Most, and third most, out of 100 senators are bad odds. Wake up American ... keep America strong, elect McCain/Palin to the white house in November.