Obama in S.C.; toughens security stance, would not use DOJ to investigate Bush administration

[Karmadillo]

http://www.charlotte.com/breaking_news/story/308764.html

ROCK HILL --Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Saturday he would increase troops in Afghanistan and leave a strike force in Iraq to pursue terrorist organizations if he is elected.

"There has to be a time you have to deploy force," Obama told an energetic crowd of more than 1,500 people at Northwestern High School in Rock Hill.

<edit>

"I think we can do an orderly phased withdrawal of one to two brigades a month. At that pace, we would have our combat troops out in about 16 months, and what I would maintain is a very limited presence to protect our embassies, to protect our civilian personnel ... and to have a strike force to go after al-Qaida in Iraq or to engage in other counterterrorist activities."

<edit>

But, Obama said, he would not use the Department of Justice to investigate the administration if elected. "I don't want to waste time as president spending all our time looking backwards. I want to look forward," Obama said, adding the caveat that if evidence of criminal activity arose, he would expect it to be pursued by the Justice Department.

more...

[derby378]

1. That crumbling sound you hear is Obama's poll numbers

Won't even bring Herr Decider to justice? Sorry, Obama, that's yet another deal-breaker with me.

[Cha]

13. It is a "deal breaker", man..

:wtf: We wouldn't had bushit this time if bill clinton would have investigated fuck-ing poopy.

[Silence Dogood]

19. OMG- There goes the "new" politics-

it's business as usual. Everything he's been telling us is a LIE!

[Cha]

24. Your hyperbole does not

work for me.

[mmonk]

2. Scratch

Obama.

[beachmom]

21. There is nobody left then. We have only the "caveat" to hold onto, I guess. nt

[mmonk]

37. I'm sorry he said that. I was considering him if my candidates don't

take hold. However, we have a base in Kuwait. In fact we have over 700 military bases throughout the world we could "battle terrorism" with.

[Didereaux]

3. He just guaranteed that I will NEVER vote for him.

If he is the Democratic candidate I will do the unthinkable, I will NOT vote for a president. Period, and you can take that to the bank Obama...you lost an independant older white males vote, and your sorely lacking in those.

[geek tragedy]

6. President Giuliani thanks you for your purism. eom

[Didereaux]

8. whats the diff, he just gave blanket pardons to war criminals..

...thank you very much I believe I will try and live with my integrity and honor in tact, having NEVER supported nor condoned a war criminals acts.

[geek tragedy]

10. If you can't comprehend the difference between

Obama and Giuliani . . .

[babylonsister]

26. Give it a rest; he did not. nt

[ncabot22]

32. He DID NOT give blanket pardons

He took the correct approach. He correctly stated that if the DOJ finds evidence of criminal activity, they should investigate. He won't stand in their way. The president isn't supposed to be in control of the DOJ, despite what has been happening the past 8 years.

I seriously doubt you were going for Obama anyway. You taking what he said severely out of context merely allows you to state your oppositon to his candidacy.

[Zhade]

40. Wait - wanting to hold criminals accountable is "purism"?

NT1

[SoxFan]

17. Willard thanks you

[bullimiami]

4. so he isnt outraged by bushco lawbreaking? its fine with him for them to take the billions and skip

just to come back and cause trouble again in the future?

F that.

I dont know who im going for in the primary. kucinich? at least i can pick him with pride.



if obama is the nominee i will hold my nose again and do it but i dont think ill be having to worry about that.

hillary was part of the nixon impeachment trial. i hope she is still offended by blatant criminality.
its pretty likely that ill be holding my nose and voting for her.

[amandabeech]

5. So Halliburton and Blackwater are off the table?

If they get away with what they've done, we will only have more the next time around. Crookedness must be prosecuted. It is one of the jobs of the Justice Department.

Lots of people do what they think that they can get away with.

Obama has good points, but this is not one of them.

[evlbstrd]

7. Same mistake Clinton made.

He let Reagan/Bush slide. No dice.

[Cha]

16. Exactamundo!

I like Obama and I'm thinking...I hope there's a way to get him Straight on this.

[madrchsod]

9. increased forces in afghanistan and it`s effects

depends on pakistan and iran relations with the usa and here will be a strike force in iraq no matter who the president is.

depending on the political stability, we could withdraw our forces faster than 16 months

"adding the caveat that if evidence of criminal activity arose, he would expect it to be pursued by the Justice Department." he`s leaving it up to house and senate to do their jobs first...as it should be.

[TomClash]

11. I saw Edwards on MTP . . .

. . . and I read this about Obama . . .

. . . and then there's Hillary on the War . . .

. . . and then I remember why I haven't supported any candidate.

[Cha]

12. That's too bad, Obama...

I know hillary's not gonna do it, either..but, in order to move forward you have to investigate the past if it's been fucking up the country for 8 years.

Why should bushits get away with being war criminals and perpetrators of crimes against humanity just because the next pres "wants to move forward"? That's what bill clinton did and look how that came back to BITE us in the ASS.

You'd think Obama would learn from that little bit of US fucking history..since I know it.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

18. To copy text from two earlier comments i made on this

Is it a presidents duty to direct the investigations the DOJ does, or should the DOJ investigate wrongdoings it knows/finds?

Way i see it, Obama would choose the proper course by not personally getting involved in DOJ business(aside from hopefully hiring a number of good people to work there)

Unless i'm wrong a fair number here tend to talk about how Bush controls the DOJ and how the DOJ is supposed to be independent of the presidency, am i to assume that once an democrat becomes president direct DOJ control is good?

[beachmom]

22. It's the president's job to declassify pertinent information.

If he doesn't do that, then the Congress or a fairly independent A.G. is limited in what they can do.

[Cha]

23. Good thoughts, BBW!

And Welcome to DU from Norway~

Sounds good to me..don't have the President involved and have an independent investigation.

Clinton sure got it when he was in.. for nothing. Fascists have gotten away with too much for too long.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

29. Thanks for the welcome

even tho i've lurked here for ages :)

It seems fairly common sense to me since my understanding was that the DOJ, Congress and Presidency are supposed to be separate, and its a common complaint that bush controls the DOJ(if its wrong for him to do it its also wrong for a democrat to do the same )

[Cha]

30. Unfortunately, I've found

through the years(since 2000) that "common sense" doesn't enter into politics sometimes.

But, that's what we're fightin' for.

[NoPasaran]

33. You should understand though

That the Justice Department is part of the Executive and in the end answers to the President.

[killbotfactory]

31. You're right

people are objecting over semantics, in this case.

[rucky]

14. Denial doesn't heal.

Justice does. If he doesn't want to use the DOJ, then he should consider using the Hague.

[Silence Dogood]

20. Good Luck with that!

There is no substitute for Justice and it's gross disrespect of the power of the presidency, if he refuses to protect the people and the Constitution, if he doesn't prosecute.

:puke:

[MiniMe]

15. It is important so it doesn't happen again

Didn't we say that after Nixon?? Details need to come out about this so everybody understands the outrage. Except for the 28 percenters or course.

[slipslidingaway]

25. Disagree with Obama, we've seen how this strategy does not

benefit the people in the long run :(

"..."I don't want to waste time as president spending all our time looking backwards. I want to look forward," Obama said..."



Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[Bodhi BloodWave]

27. look at my post 18 n/t

n/t

[slipslidingaway]

34. Understand but I still disagree with his premise...

"...I don't want to waste time as president spending all our time looking backwards. I want to look forward," Obama said..."


I hope the next leader will be able to do both :)

[opihimoimoi]

28. Poor decision by Obama....Looking backwards to correct the Mess is Mandatory

toward solving.....

[Hippo_Tron]

35. Seems to me that after Bush gets done with pardons there won't be anything left to investigate

[eppur_se_muova]

36. "dont want to waste time looking backwards" = "that's old news", "we've moved beyond that"

Excuse me, but isn't it a truism that EVERY criminal case is a matter of looking at what people have done in the past, pretty much by definition? Or have we reached the point where we only jail people for what they're going to do in the future (I know, I know, DHS is salivating over that ...)?


Demagoguery 101: The Power of the False Dichotomy.
(You must choose 0 or 100; there is no happy medium.)

"I don't want to waste time as president spending all our time looking backwards. I want to look forward," Obama said...

When did anyone ever suggest that it was necessary to spend ALL "our" time looking backward? (*sniff* ... *sniff* ... I smell straw. Oops, wait, that's the next lesson.) Aren't our leaders expected to spend a certain amount of their time looking forward, and a considerable amount of their time firmly rooted in the here and now, AND a respectable amount of time looking at what went wrong, and what went right, in the past? Thinking about the future is the "glory" part of being President. There's a lot of the cleaning-out-the-Augean-stables type of tedium associated with being POTUS, and it sounds like Obama is wanting to volunteer for the glory without the tedium. Whoever serves (and I do mean SERVES) as POTUS after 2009 had better go into the job with a good pair of hip boots, a strong stomach, and a spare set of choppers, because they're going to be wading through a lot of muck, turning up a lot of bodies, and grinding their teeth in frustation as they dig the White House out the wreckage of the American system of government that Bu**sh** has left us. Hard workers are welcome to volunteer; glory hogs can stay home.











(PS: I know they/their is not grammatically correct, but I was avoiding repeated use of s/he and his/her.)

[DemBones DemBones]

38. O boy, Obama, bye bye.

:disgust:

[Zhade]

39. "Waste time"? "IF"???

How stupid do you think we are, Obama?

Or how blind are you, to not see the mountains of evidence?

[Hawkowl]

41. Fuck him.

I can't believe this guy is from Chicago. Not the Chicago I'm from. Let the war criminals just go on their merry way! Pansy. Wussy. Coward. Useless git.

[AtomicKitten]

42. Better question: Are they investigating now?

I find it rather absurd to be upset with someone for a reasonable answer to a hypothetical question set off in the future when the Democrats in Congress right now appear to be letting this administration's felonies slide.

[wyldwolf]

43. paging blm...