Meet The Press

[TomG]

Did anyone see Tim Russert interview Barack Obama on Meet The Press this AM?  Wada ya think?

[owrstrich]

i missed it... i usually dont watch those appologists media folks and sideway talking special interest politicians...

but... i read the transcript because of your post... and you dont want to know what i think...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15304689

here is the first page... click the link for the whole thing...


MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: Only 16 days until the midterm elections. Will the Democrats retake control of the Congress? What would they do if they did? With us: the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic convention, and author of his new book, "Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream," Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. Then, insights, analysis and even a few predictions from our roundtable: David Broder of The Washington Post, Charlie Cook of the National Journal, John Harwood of The Wall Street Journal, and Robert Novak of the Chicago Sun- Times.

But first, he has crisscrossed the nation, campaigning for his fellow Democrats and perhaps positioning himself for his own presidential run. With us: Senator Barack Obama.

Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): Great to see you, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me start with Iraq, because you write about it in your book and you've been talking about it on the campaign a little bit. This is what you told New Yorker magazine: "There's an old saying in politics: when your opponent's in trouble, just get out of the way. ... in political terms, I don't think that Democrats are obligated to solve Iraq for the Administration." Is there an obligation in non-political terms?

SEN. OBAMA: Yes, and then, you know, if you follow up the quote in that magazine article, what I said is, despite the politics, we have young men and women who are putting their lives at stake in Iraq, we're making an enormous investment on the part of the American people, and so we do have an obligation to step up. And so what I've been saying of late on the campaign trail is that, given the rapidly deteriorating situation down there, it is incumbent upon all the leadership in Washington to execute a serious change of course in Iraq, and I think that involves a phased—the beginnings of a phased withdrawal that would put more of the onus on the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people to make a decision about what kind of Iraq they want, and also to engage the regional powers—whether it's Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria—to say, "You can't sit on the sidelines. You have a stake in a stabilized Iraq."

MR. RUSSERT: In your book, page 302, you write that we should begin this phased withdrawal by the end of 2006.

SEN. OBAMA: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: That's within the next 70 days.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

SEN. OBAMA: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: That's your position.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, the—I—what I would do is to sit down with the Joint Chiefs of Staff at this point and say, "We are going to begin this phased withdrawal. How quickly can we begin this in a responsible way, in consultation with the Iraqi government?" And it may be now—keep in mind, I was writing this three or four months ago—it may be, at this point, that it happens at the beginning of the year. But the most important thing is to send a strong signal that we can't arbitrate a civil war. We can't impose a military solution on the problems in Iraq. What we're going to have to do is make all the parties involved come to some sort of political accommodation. And they're going to have to make a decision about the kind of country that they want to live in.

MR. RUSSERT: Two years ago in September of '04, this is what you told the Associated Press: "Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama ... opposed invading Iraq ... but pulling out now [he said] would make things worse.

"A quick withdrawal would add to the chaos there and make it 'an extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity,' he said. It would also damage America's international prestige and amount to 'a slap in the face' to the troops fighting there." So two years from now—from then, you no longer believe pulling out would damage our prestige our slap our soldiers in the face?

SEN. OBAMA: I—at the time, as you know, I, I thought this whole venture was, was poorly conceived. Not just poorly executed, but poorly conceived. I think it was a mistake for us to go in. I felt that once we had gone in, it made sense for us to try to make the best of the situation. And my hope was is that the Iraqi government could in somewhat—some ways, bring about some sort of stability in the region.

What we've seen is such a rapid deterioration of the situation. There was an article in The New York Times on Saturday where the government isn't even venturing into some neighborhoods in Baghdad to pick up bodies. And the—a Iraqi was quoted as saying, "If a government can't come to pick up the bodies because it's too afraid, is it really a government?" And I think that's the question that we have to ask ourselves right now.

Given the deteriorating situation, it is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we've been in right now.

MR. RUSSERT: What if we do get out and more foreign terrorists pour across the borders and create in Iraq something like Afghanistan in the '90s? What do we do?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, look, the—by the president's own national intelligence assessments, we've ben creating more terrorists as a consequence of our occupation of Iraq. There are no good options in Iraq. There are bad options and worse options. What we can't do is continue a pattern in which we effectively say we are supporting this government, we send in troops into Baghdad to do policing work, our casualties spike up, the administration feels political heat, pulls them back, and we continue on this cycle, which could continue on indefinitely. We've got to change the pattern and get Iraqis and the regional powers to take seriously the task of trying to figure out how they can live together.

MR. RUSSERT: You write about the Democratic Party in your book, and this is part of it: "We Democrats are just, well, confused. ... Mainly, though, the Democratic Party has become the party of reaction. In reaction to a war that is ill conceived, we appear suspicious of all military action." What are you saying?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, I, you know, I think that after 9/11, all of us rallied around the president. It was an enormous shock to the system and we were rooting for this administration to execute a national security plan that would make sense. That put Democrats, I think, on the defensive because they didn't want to appear to be challenging a wartime president. And that is what I'm writing about, that sense that we can't challenge and come up with our own national security plan. What I've seen in this election, and I think part of the reason Democrats are doing well all across the country, is that free pass is, I think, over. And you've seen Democrats emboldened and have a sense that we cannot continue on the path that we're on now. And so as a consequence, you're seeing, I think, much more straightforward, much more aggressive questioning of the administration and hopefully an exploration by the Democrats of how we can actually improve the situation.

MR. RUSSERT: You write this: "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?" Would you invade North Korea?

SEN. OBAMA: No, I don't think that's an option. They've got a million troops in uniform, very well trained. The point I was making in that passage is that after 9/11, we had an opportunity to do what Truman and Marshall and Acheson did after World War II, which is to say, how are we going to come up with an overarching national security strategy that will allow us to engage our allies, rebuild international institutions, many of which are creaky and, and, and have outlived their usefulness. How do we determine where our national interests necessitate deploying troops and where do we use diplomacy and other tools? That national security strategy has never been forthcoming. And because of that, not only have our military actions lacked legitimacy around the world, but the American people have questioned them.

And, and you know, there's a saying in the military that legitimacy is, you know, is a force multiplier, that, that if the American people are bought into our efforts and our allies are bought into our efforts, then we are going to be more successful than when it appears that we are just acting randomly or based on ideological predispositions, and that, I think, has been one of the central problems of this administration.

MR. RUSSERT: But if North Korea and/or Iran continue to develop their nuclear arsenal...

SEN. OBAMA: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...and sanctions don't work...

SEN. OBAMA: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...you would be opposed to military action?

SEN. OBAMA: No. Look, I think that military options have to be on the table when you're dealing with rogue states that have shown constant hostility towards the United States. The point that I would make, though, is that we have not explored all of our options, and I'll give you one very good example. You know, James Baker said recently, he does not know why we would not talk to our enemies. During the entire Cold War, at the peak of the Cold War, when there were nuclear missiles pointing at every major U.S. city, there was a direct line between the White House and the Kremlin. We have not explored any kind of dialogue with either Iran or North Korea, and I think that has been a mistake. As a consequence, we have almost no leverage over them. We end up having to use surrogates in order to try to communicate to them to find out what their interests are, what their bottom lines are and to send clear messages to them about what we think is acceptable or unacceptable. So I think military options always have to remain on the table, but I think that when we leave all the other tools in the tool kit, then we are doing a disservice to the American people.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you have direct negotiations between the president of the United States and Kim Jong Il?

SEN. OBAMA: You know, what I would do is, at this point, given the provocation of the recent nuclear test, I think let's try to get these sanctions to work. I think the administration—which had not done a very good job on the North Korea issue, partly because it had been bogged down in Iraq—right now is taking some of the right steps. Let's reconvene the six-party talks. China and South Korea are central to those efforts. But I think that in time it would make sense for us to initiate some bilateral conversations on—in parallel with the six-party talks, partly because it would strengthen, I think, the commitment of China and South Korea to really put some pressure on North Korea.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you commit U.S. troops to Darfur?

[TomG]

Yep!  That's the one :)

[owrstrich]

well... wada ya think...

you gotta eat...

owrstrich

[MWS]

I won't comment on the politics cuz i'm   but......Neil Young sings about Obama in 'Looking for a leader'. I like Neil.



http://www.neilyoung.com/lwwtoday/index.html

[coyote]

Just like the song Sweet Home Alabama "Hope Neil Young will remember, Southern boys need him around..anyhow "  Lynrd Skynrd

[TomG]

I think I remember that cut;

Looking for a leader
To bring our country home
Reunite the red, white and blue
Before it turns to stone
Lookin' for somebody
Young enough to take it on
Clean up the corruption
And make the country strong

Walkin' among our people
There's someone straight and strong
To lead us from dessolation
And a broken world gone wrong
................................
................................
................................
................................

I can hum the tune but can't dance to it ;)

[coyote]

Hey Tom...................Gimme a beat ! ;D
                                                  Coyote