Senator Barack Obama questions Petraeus and Crocker

[swag]

Run time: 08:25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yG83rSm6fY   Posted on YouTube: April 08, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: April 09, 2008 By DU Member: swag Views on DU: 1129

 

[Oilwellian]

1. He asked some very good questions

Watching Crocker try and answer that last question was interesting. If indeed Iran is involved in arming and training militias within Iraq, why has Maliki welcomed them with open arms?

Thanks for posting. I didn't have the opportunity to see it earlier.

[PetraPooh]

2. I'll watch the whole thing and post again in a sec (takes some time to watch on dialup) but

on the segment shown on NewsHour, I wasn't as impressed as I'd like to be. I realize he was one of if not the last person to ask questions, and he was struggling to word things in a way that Betrayus couldn't avoid direct answers. So perhaps on watching the whole thing, I'll change my mind. Even so, I don't expect Obama or anyone to always be 100% and even in the brief I've seen, he was at least an 85%.

[PetraPooh]

3. After watching the whole thing, I'm still a bit discouraged. In the end

he didn't actually get either Betrayus or Crockof to actually answer the questions. Yet he seemed to give the impression he was satisfied with the answers (or non-answers as it were). I understand that they aren't likely going to give straight answers but I would have liked to see Obama call them on the fact that they were dancing around instead of implying he felt he had been answered fully.

[Zachstar]

4. He needed to make his point and get his info in the time alloted.

Going back and forth would have meant he would have hogged the time.

The others did great at exposing even more of the crap while Obama got bits of info he needs to help plan an exit from Iraq.

[PetraPooh]

5. I suppose, but he hmm'ed and hawed a bit too much, got sidetracked

with putting too much information before his questions. He should have been able to be more succinct and less "stumbly" with the time he was alloted. Just my opinion.

[underpants]

8. He was establishing that the goal "victory" can not be the complete eradication of alQaeda in Iraq

both because you simply can't do that but also that they recognized (as basically spokesmen for the administration) that the occupation of Iraq can't continue just because there is one alQaeda left somewhere in the country. Controlling it is the goal, getting it out of the way of the Iraqi government is the goal....and it could be said that that HAS happened at least the Sunnis have cast alQaeda out as they are no longer needed (the insurgency is now in leadership positions).

He does choose his words carefully and is measured, he is a lawyer after all and a rather intelligent guy.

Seeing this sort of thing is really reassuring, IMHO, to people who want to vote for him but to date are being told about him not engaging him personally.

[JI7]

6. if you listen to this on the radio the point is made much better

Petraeus and Crocker just aren't able to answer the questions. Obama tends to pause a lot when he speaks , especially in things like this and if you watch it can be distracting to some. but to me it shows he is really thinking and getting into the issues.

if you just listen to it rather than focus on how he may appear the point is made much better.

[Apollo11]

7. Obama started out by thanking Petraeus and Crocker for their "sacrifice"!

Is this a new meaning of the word "sacrifice"? :eyes:

[Papi]

9. Petraeus is overrated

Some people treat this guy like a God. I see it this way: He's leading the army that is based on a nation that did not hurt us, and that we invaded based on lies. How's that.

[FrenchieCat]

10. Patraeus isn't looking for jeffersonian Democracy as of today......after yesterday.

Obama must have been more effective than for what he is being given credit.....because it appears that Petraeus understand exactly what Obama's point was.....after thinking about it.

Petraeus: 'We're not seeking a Jeffersonian democracy' in Iraq
April 09, 2008
Categories: Iraq


In response to a speech (and it can't be called anything else) by Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) on "Why are we fighting in Iraq?," Petraeus gave an interesting response: "We are not seeking a Jeffersonian democracy here."

Petraeus' point was that U.S. military leaders aren't seeking a perfectly functioning government in Iraq - what Petraeus called "the Holy Grail" - in order to delare victory and go home. Just one that works pretty well. It was an interesting statement and one needs further exploration. Is it a shift in goals for the United States in Iraq?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0408/Petraeus_Were_not_seeking_a_Jeffersonian_democracy_in_Iraq.html