Looks like Bush is going to energize the Democratic base and probably the independents who now know after Bush's speech that there can be no compromising with Bush.

Obama will make a great president!

Richardson is taking his message that the U.S. must exit Iraq - ALL of our troops and start now - across Iowa.  He doesn't tailor his message depending upon the audience.  Yesterday, Richardson spoke on ending the war in Iraq at town halls at the National Guard Armory in Council Bluffs and the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post in Sioux City.

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/09/14/news/local/a83d26820a94b68186257356000fa318.txt

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070914/NEWS09/709140381/1001/NEWS

The fact of the matter is the Shrub's legacy will be of a lier and bungler of the worst kind.  His enabling parents bailed him out his entire spoiled life and now it falls on the next administration; if it is a Republican; which I DOUBT; it will fall to a  Democrat who will be blamed for withdrawing our troops ensuring a pandora's box that can only be placed at the foot of this administration.

League of Conservation Voters releases environmental ratings of 2008 Presidential candidates - Obama is at the top of the list!

http://presidentialprofiles2008.org

There is more info. on his record here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/14/9017/67671

Obama did NOT vote against giving bush the authority to go to war with Iraq.

You Obamaites know that , right?


You all also know that he voted against a set date for troop withdrawl before he voted for it, right?

come on , speak up!

I think the Democratic base will be as energized to dump Clinton in the primaries as it is to dump the Republicans in the general.  There are a lot more Mov-On types out there rooting for Obama or Edwards or someone else than the Democratic machine may realize.  It'll be the Democratic Machine versus the True Democratic Base in the primaries.  Who wins will tell us who will win the genral election.  If the Machine candidate (Hillary) wins, we lose the White House---again.
Oh, yeah; so what if someone openly calls Bush a liar.  I do it every day of the week!

Tuck -

1) Obama does not have a vote for the Iraq War Resolution on his record, and Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, and Biden do.  That alone is very significant.

2. Troop withdrawal is a much more complex issue of degrees than the yes or no prospect of going to war, so trying to equivocate the two and play purity troll doesn't have much of an effect.  You don't have to argue about withdrawing troops if they're not there to begin with; the only true way to be anti-war is not just to end wars, but to refrain from starting them in the first place.

Tuck, i think you must be suffering from illusion. If you don't have any meaningful contribution why can't you just short up. Please get your facts right before opening your mouth or else you will just look like a fool. Below is Obama's speech prior to the war and pay attention to his rationale for opposing it.  

................

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

It’s pretty clear to me: Obama was right. Not merely right, dead-right. Every politician that voted for the war were wrong. Dead-wrong.

Why? Because they bought into a Bush-mainstream media fabrication that said that Saddam had WMDs.

No, Tuck, Obama did not vote against giving bush the authority to go to war with Iraq".

Now why was that.....? Oh yeah-

BECAUSE OBAMA WAS UNABLE TO VOTE, since he was in the Illinois state legislature at the time.

Obama did, however, speak out publicly AGAINST THE WAR in 2002,
in an awesome insightful speech which you can go read in it's entirety on barackobama.com. (sorry i don't know how to post a link)

In my opinion, the impressive thing about Obama's speech is not just that he publicly opposed the war but how he was able to (almost eerily) predict the quagmaire that has resulted by our invading Iraq.

VERY smart guy, Obama.

Also, he voted against setting a date until it became clear to him and all of america, that it would/will take drastic means to stop our crazy dictator. It's also true that Obama has voted in the past to continue to fund the troop. Well- i would too. When the troops don't have enough  armor as it is, you can't cut more. UNLESS and until it's a LAST RESORT to ending the war. Unfortunately it looks like it might come to that

Good judgment and insight( Obama) will trump platitudes and sound bites( Hillary)

Tuck, Realityville:
'Obama did NOT vote against giving bush the authority to go to war with Iraq....'

He opposed the war FROM THE BEGINNING !!!
While Hillary Clinton VOTED FOR THE WAR...
..... OBAMA OPPOSED THE WAR !!
At some political risk, I might say

'....You Obamaites know that , right?...'

He was preparing for a run for the US Senate at the time. It's hard to vote in the Senate when you're NOT IN the Senate.
Hillary was in the Senate......
SHE VOTED FOR THE WAR WHEN IT WAS POPULAR !!
Opportunism knocks !!


....come on , speak up!
Tuck, Realityville

What part of 'Reality' do you live in, Tuck ??

Hillary Clinton, 15 years of dishonesty, scandal and divisiveness

If all the people who support this war would line up at the recruiting office and enlist we might very well end it. Another way would be to reinstate the draft and then you would be standing in Lafayette park across from the white house shouting "Hello w what do you say? How many Kids have you killed today? That would also end it.

"Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair."
-Barrack Obama

Damn straight, why don't we extend Democracy to our "friends" the Saudi bastards?

Hey Tuck,
There is no such thing as Realityville in Kansas, a state that barely recognizes fact, reason and logic.

Sen. Obama is the only candidate on either side who has been clear and consistent in his approach to Iraq.

This country needs unity, not division.  We need hope, not fear.  Sen. Barack Obama is the best candidate to bring our country together and put us back on the right track.

Obama '08

Shadow and jds - The point still remains, Obama did not have to make the tough decision.  It's very easy to sit on the sidelines and boo and hiss and cry foul.    

New idea! How about an Iraq Gas charge of $1.00 or more per gallon to pay for the war? Then see how fast the US is outta there! Congress tells Bush " spend it any way you want no strings". BUT the "fee" stays in place until the last American trooper leaves.

Thanks Toris, every time I read Obama's speech from October of 2002, it blows me away.  It has the same impressive relevance now as it had then.  This guy is the real thing.  We need a president who can rationally and presciently analyze problems so that we avoid catastrophic mistakes, like this war.  The U.S. is like an 18 wheeler and if the driver can see the road, the consequences are disasterous.
Obama '08

GOOD OABAM HELPING HIS OWN PARTY A GOOD TALKER ABOUT IRAQ- BUT HE CANT BE A PRES. 50 STATES DISAGREE WITH Q BALCK COLOR GUY FRM KENYA/MUSLIMS AND BORN IN HAWAYII- IF HE IS WHITE?OR HAS WHITE SKIN HELL BE IN WHITE HOUSE SO HES  BLACK SKIN HES BELONG TO THE BLACK HOUSE. PLUS NEEDS EXPREIENCE. PEOPLE KNOWS IT/ NO MORE CRUMBLE AMERCA WHEN THE HOLTER BUSH AND MORON LEAVE OFFICE.
WE HAVE A GOOD ONE NOW- WE NEET 4 YEARS AND 8 YEARS OF HILLARY CLINTON TO PUT THIS COUNTRY IN GOOD SHAPE.
LIKE HER HUSBAND DID IN THE 90S.

I say bring our kids home, and put the 10 billion/month into homeland security if protecting "my fellow Americans" is our primary interest in Iraq.

Personally, I hope to vote for Biden. I like what I hear so far...Time will tell.

Carrie, paleeze.
Obama was campaigning for the U.S. Senate at the time and came out clearly against authorization.

Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Kerry etc made a political calculation, not a principled one.  

Anyone who voted for or was in favor of authorization to invade Iraq does not have the judgment we need in these dangerous times.  

tuck , your just stupid !Are you not tired of  embarrassing yourself. Pathetic. With your blatent disregard to any realm of truth towards Obama and lack of that towards the other dem candidates I can only come to the conclusion that you are a racist .And a pathetic one at that

Well Carrie, Hillary and Edwards did have to make the tough decision and they both made the wrong one.  She didn't even read the NIE report (but was well briefed - isn't that great?) before voting on the defining issue of her senatorial career.  He didn't think he should vote for the resolution and agonized over it.  In the end, he was advised to do it and he did.  I guess that should disqualify both of them in their quest for the presidency (at least from this side of the political spectrum).

Obama opposed the war when he couldn't vote - then began funding it and opposing timetables as soon as he was elected.
He even voted against Kerry's redeployment bill June 2006. Then one month before announcing his prez run, sponsored his own redeployment bill. Sweet - huh?

Many Obama followers have been duped into thinking he always opposed the war. But actually he was basically silent while he was funding it for 2 years - until he announced for prez.

Only the informed are truly aware of Obama's scam.

Carrie - How was the IWR a tough decision?  It was the stupidest blunder in US foreign policy history to anyone who had a shred of the clue about the Middle East.  Policywise, there was NO tough decision; it was a DUMB war, as Obama said in 2002, and Clinton has yet to say.  

The only way in which the IWR vote was difficult was politically, because Senators were as always concerned about their next Senate race, but the thing is that so was Obama in 2002; he was looking at an upcoming Senate election and a future political career beyond that just like Clinton, Biden, Dodd, and Edwards were.  The difference is that Obama made the right choice.

A poll released yesterday indicates Connecticut voters would vote for Lamont today - not Lieberman.

While plotting his prez run, Obama ENDORSED warmonger Lieberman - and Hillary sent Bill to campaign with Lieberman.  Follow the money...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman

Only Edwards and Dodd stood with Lamont.

Al Gore would be president now if Clinton had kept his zipper zipped. It would be absurd and immoral to vote for a repeat.
NO DYNASTIES - No more Clintons!!

Oh, those Hillary haters are out in full force today.  They are even meaner and more miserable than usual.  Must be the results of the six national polls released this week and the fact that she leads Obama by double digits in all of them.  She also beats Giuliani in both of the polls that measured her support against Rudy’s in a general election.

Face it – Hillary’s campaign is the best run and producing the best results of any candidate in this race.

Ready for change?  She’s ready to lead…

Toris, thank you for posting Obama's original speech. This is the first time i get the chance to read the whole speech. His arguement against the war was dead right. In fact, his prediction on this war was exactly right.

If all these moron that voted for the war took their time to read the inteliigence reports, they wouldn't have voted for it. Edward, Clinton, Biden, and Dodd are all idiots for letting George Bush deceive them.

Having read this Obama's speech, i am surely going to start paying attention to him and probably vote for him in Jannuary.

In response to carie IA, your arguement is baseless. There are some Senators (Dick Durban, Fingold, Jack Reed...) that voted against the war in 2002, why can't these moron that voted for the war reach the same conclusion? I guess we'd have saved Billions of dollar we wasted in Iraq.

It take judgement and foresight to see beyond public opinion. Obama, you are courageous and you will surely have my vote.

So Margaret, you're saying that Obama scammed us by hiding his real intent to be for the war when he was running for the senate, at a time when most of the country supported the war.  And then as the sentiments against the war began to rise (especially in the Democratic party) he allowed his 'true' hawkish feelings about the war to manifest.  Gee, that would make him one hell of a political opportunist.  Sort of like wrong way Feldman from an episode of Guilligan's Island (no relation).  Lady, I'm so glad that you're informed and that you've got this all figured out.  
    I suggest another interpretation.  Perhaps Obama's support for funding or his problems with timetables may have more to do with his concern about the safety of our troops.  As he always says, (and I paraphrase)...we must be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.  I suggest that you become more even more informed than you already are.
Obama '08

I do think it's a fair point to state that Obama did not have to make the decision to authorize the Iraq war. Obama had aspirations for higher office so it's difficult to say what he would've done had he been in the same situation as Clinton or Edwards. I also to think its quite fair to say that if the situation had been reverse the Clinton machine would be exploiting that Obama had voted to go to war for all it's worth.

Honestly, I'm not sure anyone who authorized the president to go to war in 2002 should be elected president in 2008. Espeically someone who says that she thought her vote was to give the president more time for diplomatic conversations with Iraq.

CSH-
I would love to see the look on your face when Hillary's "inevitablity" factor goes up in flames.  All you Hillary supporters love the national polls, which are meaningless. She's divisive, polarizing, unprincipled (outside of her quest for power) and truly represents the status quo.

What experience does Hillary have that makes her so appealing to the far left?  Oh, right, she hung the drapes in the White House for 8 years...she's so ready to be President.

Richard - Don't lie.  Obama, Dodd, and Edwards all supported Lamont after he won the primary, and none supported him before that, so all three men exactly on the same page when it comes to the CT Sen race.

Margaret - Obama had no scam; he made his withdrawal recommendations based on General Abizaid's testimony two months earlier, whereas the Kerry bill's timeline the previous summer did not confer with what commanders on the ground thought was realistic (two brigades a month).  However, Obama has ALWAYS argued that sending ground troops into Iraq in the first place was the wrong thing to do, and that's something that can't be said about Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, or Kerry for that matter.  The question is, is there going to be a Democratic nominee for the SECOND election in a row trying to cover for the IWR vote that voted yes on, or is it time to turn the page?

Listening to Petraeus and Crocker this week I heard Al Qaeda this, Al Qaeda that, Al Qaeda will establish terrorist training camps if we leave , Al Qaeda's influence will spread to all the other nations in the region, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda.

How many Al Qaeda terrorists did they say have been killed or captured since the "SURGE" began? They could not recall!
How many Al Qaeda terrorists did they say are still in Iraq? They do not have a current estimate!
How long did they say will it take to kill or capture the remaining Al Qaeda in Iraq? They will get to Congress in March 2008 with an Estimate!
How has 100,000 Iraqi's per month  that are being displaced from their homes since the surge began to refugee camps, other nations to other areas of the same ethnicity affected the reduction in VIOLENCE? It has had some affect but we can not quantify it.
How long did they say will it take to "WIN" the WAR? We can only see 4 - 6 months into the future and we will not have won by then. We will give you a update in March 2008.
Did General Petraeus say the War in Iraq was making us safer here in the homeland? He said: " I'm not sure it is making America safer."

Note: The estimates of the size of Al Qaeda in Iraq according the Brookings Institution Iraq Index  was less than 10 in January 2003, about 3000 in July 2006, and about 5000 in July 2007. The Reuters factbox talley indicates we have killed less than 200 since Jan. 2007.
The size of the Iraq Security Force is over 350,000 and over 200,000 of them can operate with minimal or no US Troop Support.What will they be doing if we draw down to a typical peacekeeping force of 45,000 troops?
President Bush mentioned Al Qaeda 14 times in his speech but weaselly or maybe more appropriately he DUCKED  answering any of these questions.

What amazes me is that no President or Presidential canditate including the people at the top like Obama or Clinton, seem to know anything about the history of the region.  It sometimes get said in passing that Shia's and Sunni's have killed each other in the name of religion for over 1,300 years - which is true.  But for the last 400 years Sunni Turkey ruled the area being called Iraq now and was challenged by Shia Persia (now Iran) for almost all of that time.  Iraq was not a country until 1922 when the Ottoman Empire (now Turkey) was broken up by the victorious Allies of WWI.  So militant opposing religious forces have been fighting there for the last four hundred years (that is before the Pilgrims came here). To think that we will make a difference there if we stay 10 more years rather than 10 more months is not very logical.  The three groups in Iraq (Arab Shia's, Arab Sunni's and Kurdish Sunni's)have almost nothing in common with each other culturally, historically,or politically.  Everyone knows that we wil defend our own (oil) interests in the region.  But to talk about nation building in an area that was not a nation, with groups that do not like each other, and to think that democracy will not simply become the tyranny of the majority - is very naive and very costly to everyone involved in this mess.  It gets us nowhere to talk about victory over there.  What are we going to do, convert everyone to Christianity?  It might get us somewhere to talk about a three nation solution.  With the USA helping to guarantee the existence of those nations, then we could stop losing troops and money proping up a central government that does not work and that no one wants. Baghdad goes to the Shia's.  The Saudi's fund and support the Sunni state, and the Kurds get a nation in which to mind their own business.  

Just think four hundred years every time someone says something about how much better things are going and can go there.  And think 2 - 3 billion dollars a week of our hard earned money sinking into that place week after week after week.  Talk about the expense of building the bridge to nowhere. What a deal that was compared to what we are "building" now.

What kind of scares me is that Obama made the speech to oppose the war with out any intel. The vast majority of Dems voted for it after seeing what was presented to them. (flawed or not) So in reality he was lucky or is not willing to fight for any thing. This is not a good thing for the leader of the free world. As far as the horrible shape the economy is in?? Lowest unemployment low infaltion, low rates? Does this really sell to any one?" ATTENTION ALL" Not every job should or can pay $100k a year.In our society there are different income levels. Education, skills, and practicle knowledge all have a bearing on income. Also some ones will to work.To make alot of money you have to be willing to go beyond 40 hrs. Not every one is...    

The prospect of 2 families continuously ruling the great United States of America for 24 to 28 years still baffles me.

I thought that was for Banana Republics.

W, Boston, MA

I like Obama, he is my second choice, but you have your facts wrong.  You state:

"Obama was campaigning for the U.S. Senate at the time and came out clearly against authorization."

No he was not, in 2002 he was campaigning for re-election to the Illinois state senate. The Illinois state senate position is a 4 year term. In 2000 when  he wasn't up for re-election he ran against Bobby Rush for Congress in the Democratic primary and lost. In 2002 he ran for re-election to the Illinois state senate. The authorization was voted on in October of 02 while he was running for re-election from a very liberal Chicago district. No one really knows how he would have voted had he been in the Senate representing the full state of Illinois, or had he beat Bobby Rush in 2000 and was in Congress. I really doubt that Obama had decided in 02 so soon after losing to Rush that he would run for Senate in 04. He did announce to run for the Senate in 03, and through some luck (the Dem. favored to win had a major scandal blow up in his face)won the nomination, and he had more luck when the GOP candidate had to withdraw due to the release of his messy divorce file from an actress.

You also state:

"Sen. Obama is the only candidate on either side who has been clear and consistent in his approach to Iraq."

Actually that isn't true. Sen. Biden holds that position. Both Clinton and Obama played politics with the war in May, and they should be embarrassed! Both Clinton and Obama had voted for every prior spending authorization. The May bill, after the prior bill with deadlines was vetoed, provided substantial funding for mine-resistant vehicles to protect our soldiers, which Biden was able to get in the bill. Neither Clinton or Obama spoke before the Senate (almost unheard of with Clinton) and neither told the press (despite requests) how they were going to vote. Dodd did speak on the Senate floor against the bill and Biden did in favor, because of the need to protect the troops. Both Obama and Clinton cast their first vote against funding, but they did not do so until after enough votes were cast in favor of funding that their vote in opposition was meaningless. Unlike Dodd they did not have the guts to speak in opposition on the Senate floor, and they would not reveal their vote before the Senate voted and held off casting their until after the issue had been decided. Even then the two played chicken with each other waiting for the other to cast their vote first. Obama voted with a couple minutes left before voting closed and Clinton followed 1.5 minutes later, just prior to time for voting concluded. This was not leadership. Frankly I expected it from Clinton, but was heart broken with Obama, I expected more.

Also this vote was not a vote to end the war, and both Clinton and Obama knew it. I assume if their votes had mattered they would have voted in favor of the war supplemental, as they have every prior supplemental. Without 67 votes to override a Bush veto all the Senate can do is delay funding for troop protection, but not end the war. If this were about ending the war 11 Democrats who voted against the authorization in October 2002 would not have voted in favor of the May supplemental (Akaka, Inouye, Durbin, Mikulski, Stabenow, Levin, Bingaman, Sherrod Brown [voted against the war in the house-now he's in the Senate],Reed, Murray, and Byrd)

Obama is a great man, but no one really knows how he would have voted if he was in DC when the vote was cast.  


Lek states:

"It take judgement and foresight to see beyond public opinion. Obama, you are courageous and you will surely have my vote."

How much courage did it really take in 02 running for re-election to the Ill. State Senate from a very liberal Chicago district to be against the war. Also don't forget in 04, Obama gave speeches defending the Senators who voted in favor of the war. Supporters explain that was done because Kerry voted for the authorization, but you can't really take one speech and hold that up as proof that he would have made the right decision and ignore statements two years later, while running for US Senate that indicate far less harsh view of a war authorization vote.

so you all, obama didn't vote against the giving bush war powers, stop saying he did..

and he did vote against a time line for withdrawl, ... so why on earth would anyone believe he would have voted against the war powers act?

cause he said he would have
LMAO

obama has done ZIP in the senate to provide leadership on the war... he simply says "vote for me, i want to continue my inexperience at a more ambitous level."

he isn't what he presents himself as... he's just a climber with no experience.

Can anyone find facts that show 36 other Nations have "TROOPS ON THE GROUND" in Iraq
the President referenced in his speech Sept. 13th?
Below is information from  http://www.globalsecurity.org

It shows only 21 Nations have TROOPS ON THE GROUND and 12 of these only have 150 or fewer troops.

Countries Supporting Ops in Iraq

Country
In Iraq In Theater Total Future
1 United Kingdom  ~5500 at Air Base ~5,500  
2 South Korea  ~2,300  ~2,300 ~1,100 (?)  
3 Australia ~850 ~541 ~1,400  
4 Poland 900  900  
5 Romania 865  865  
6 Denmark 460 ~35 (NATO and UNAMI)  ~500  
7 El Salvador  380  380  
8 Georgia 300 550 (UNAMI) 850 ~2,400 (?)  
9 Azerbaijan 150  150  
10 Bulgaria ~150   ~150  
11 Latvia 136  136  
12 Albania 120  120  
13 Czech Republic  100  100  
14 Mongolia 100  100  
15 Lithuania ~50  ~50  
16 Armenia 46  46  
17 Bosnia & Herzegovina  37  37  
18 Estonia 34  34  
19 Macedonia 33  33  
20 Kazakhstan 29  29  
21 Moldova* 12  12  
TOTAL  ~14,200  ~14,000  
UNAMI Fiji ** 150   150  
1 Hungary ***  0  Withdrew troops: Mar. 2005
       2 Nicaragua  0  Withdrew troops: Feb. 2004  
       3 Spain  0  Withdrew troops: Late-Apr. 2004  
       4 Dominican Republic  0  Withdrew troops: Early-May. 2004  
       5 Honduras  0  Withdrew troops: Late-May. 2004  
       6 Philippines  0  Withdrew troops: mid-Jul. 2004  
       7 Thailand  0  Withdrew troops: Late-Aug. 2004  
       8 New Zealand  0  Withdrew troops: Late-Sep. 2004  
9 Tonga  0  Withdrew troops: mid-Dec. 2004  
10 Portugal  0  Withdrew troops: mid-Feb. 2005  
11 Singapore**** 0  Withdrew troops: Mar. 2005  
12 Norway 0  Withdrew troops: Oct. 2005  
13 Ukraine 0  Withdrew troops: Dec. 2005  
14 The Netherlands 0  Withdrew troops: Mar. 2005  
       15 Japan 0  Withdrew troops: Jul. 2006
       16 Italy  0 Withdrawal troops: End of Nov. 2006
17 Slovakia 0 Withdrew troops: End of January 2007
* A contingent of Moldovan soldiers arrived in Iraq in February 2006 to clear unexploded ordinance. This contingent replaced the third contingent of Moldovan soldiers which had redeployed to Iraq in February 2005. Many media reports regarding Moldova's supposed full withdrawal of troops have failed to mention either the 2005 or 2006 redeployment.  
** Fiji's troop contingent is deployed as part of UN Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI)
*** Was part of NATO Training Force.
**** Singapore's token contribution was a landing ship tank deployed to the Persian Gulf which arrived home on March 19, 2005.  

steve houston , good point and you know what you are talking about ,but you must not have heard obama' 2002 speach or heard him talk on numerous occations because you are basicly echoing him.

Shadow - you're wrong!  Only Edwards and Dodd stood with Lamont!
After ENDORSING and CAMPAIGNING for Lieberman, Obama and Hillary SENT Lamont $5K after he won the primary - but they REFUSED to be seen with him!

In fact, the Lamont campaign practically begged Obama to campaign with him - but Obama REFUSED.
Follow the money....

Let's just address this to everyone who has commented to me.

1) I was against invading Iraq in 2002.  Doesn't much matter, though, as I had no vote against it in Congress.  Neither did Obama.  What I said in 2002 when my ass was not on the line is irrelevant.  As far as him being in a Senate race - isn't that the one where his opponent dropped out due to some sort of sex scandal or dirty money or something and then was replaced at the last minute with Alan Keyes?  Yeah, there's a tough race right there.  Not to mention the fact that IL is pretty solidly Democratic.  

2) If it was such an "easy" decision, why did the vast majority of our federal legislators get it wrong?  It's not just Hillary, Biden, Dodd, and Edwards - it's 77 Senators and over 300 Represenatitives.  And fyi - the majority of Americans at that time supported it as well.  As I have said repeatedly, you cannot have it both ways.  If members of Congress are supposed to vote in accord with the people, then that applies as much when you don't like what the majority thinks as when you do.  Right now, everyone is screaming bloody murder because Congress is not acting fast enough to get us out of Iraq when the majority want us to withdraw, while in the next breath they blast those who voted for the invasion - which the majority of Americans then supported.

Can anyone finally, once and for all, explain that contradiction to me?  I have raised this point numerous times and never once has anyone even attempted to explain why Congress was wrong to have followed the majority of Americans in the one instance but yet is villified for not doing what Americans want now.  

Obama is an opportunist - can't win a primary - but uses his empty suit media created rock star image to garner millions from poor followers to enhance his political career.
Shameful!
but - some Obamamaniacs are catching on to the ruse.

Look, the concept here is principle.  The reason that I find Hillary's and Edwards' vote for authorization of force so offensive is because I believe that in both cases the vote was more of a political posture than it was for an actual belief in policy.  Both seem to have sacrificed their souls for political ambition and I've had enough of that crap.  I acknowledge that the decision was difficult at the time and that it's easy to make judgments in retrospect but I cannot support candidates who make decisions based on political expediency.  I want the Democratic nominee to be one who makes decisions based on available information (and that always has the potential to be erroneous) and political belief.  People are always more tolerant if the decisions are made in good faith.  But there's a huge problem if decisions are made in the framework of the politician's political self interest; if that's the case, the elected officials are just not doing the people's work.

Molly - There is more than one speech from Obama in 2002, including a video interview where he details how a post-war scenario would involve avoiding conflict between the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds.  Between that and his other correct prediction that the Iraq War would increase the amount of Al Qaeda recruitment, Obama has been more prescient about Iraq than any other leader out there.



Carrie -

1. The line about Obama having an easy race in 2004 means absolutely nothing.  It's not just that Obama won with 70% of the votes including 40% of Republicans, but that he has maintained an approval rating of 70% or higher since he was elected.  The fact is it wasn't just the weakness of Alan Keyes; those 40% of Illinois Republicans have stuck with him, and you can't dismiss that type of unparalled crossover appeal in a general election; Obama got over 11% in an open ended Presidential poll question to Iowa REPUBLICANS a few months ago, for heaven's sake.  

2. The vast majority of our federal legislators got the IWR wrong because they were pandering a massive propaganda push that duped much of the public.  However, now that propaganda has worn off, proving the old addage you can't fool all the people all the time.  I can appreciate your broader philosophical point about the inherant pitfalls of representative democracy in the abstract, but in this case, people made the initial decision to support the Iraq War based on ignorance, and have decided otherwise based on the repudiation of that ignorance; clearly, in any ethical analysis, the latter should carry more weight than the former.  

Carrie, I will answer your question. The war in Iraq was purportedly fought because of Weapons of Mass Destriction. The intelligence information seemed to say that they were there in Iraq, although they were supposed to have been disposed of. Later--much later--it was disclosed that the reports were in error. Unfortunately, the President (who previously had alluded to wanting to go to war with Iraq, as did his neocon advisors who got him elected, to further their ideology of a World Democracy) did a hair trigger action (the gun was already loaded) and used the affirmation of Congress to do his "Shock and Awe".

Since he never got to play soldier properly (his term in the National Guard as a pilot was on an outdated plane, so he would not have to go into combat) he really had no understanding about what real war was about. His whole presidency has been one supposedly based on Christian principles, which fell by the wayside rapidly, once Karl Rove duped the people into voting for Mr. Bush/Charlie MacCarthy.

How sad for our country that the world now looks at us with disdain because of this blatant disregard for the poor people in Iraq whose lives, if not being taken away from them, are being decimated.

There were many of us who predicted the outcome of attempting to force the Middle East into a mold not of their choosing.

I pray that whomever we elect for President is intelligent, wise, compassionate, and not a war monger, something that has been sorely missing in these recent years.

Richard from NYC - I live in CT and voted for Lamont twice.  The facts are that Dodd endorsed Lieberman in the primary just like Obama did, and campaigned FAR more actively for him; Obama then endorsed Lamont in the general just like Dodd and Edwards did.  There is no simply no factual reason to put Obama beneath Edwards and Dodd in this, particularly seeing how much more work Dodd did on Lieberman's behalf during the primary.  

After all, I'm not trying to tell you how the Senate races in New York went, am I?

Richard from Palatka, FL ... You said it!  I couldn't agree with you more!!!  Hopefully, they'll all catch on...sooner than later.  

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):