In terms of timetable, I'm not somebody who can say with certainty that a year from now or six months from now we're going to be able to pull down troops.

Source: IL Senate Debate, Illinois Radio Network Oct 12, 2004

So...indefinite commitment to keeping US troops in Iraq? At a reduced level, perhaps, but still there.

I would have voted not to authorize the president to go to war given the facts as I saw them at that time. But, as I said, I wasn't there and what is absolutely clear as we move forward is that if we don't have a change in tone & a change in administration, I think we're going to have trouble making sure that our troops are secure and that we succeed in Iraq.

Source: Meet The Press, NBC News Jul 25, 2004

Easy to say when you weren't sitting in the Senate.  

The war in Iraq was an ideologically driven war. I think Bush was sincere and is sincere about his desire to maintain a strong America, but there was a single-mindedness to this process that has led our country into a very difficult position. It's a consequence of that single-mindedness that we did not create the kind of international framework that would have allowed success once we decided to go in. I think that this administration is sincere but I think it's misguided.

Source: Meet The Press, NBC News Jul 25, 2004

Bush is "sincere" but "misguided".  And once again, a very telling statement:  "we did not create the...internationalf ramework that would have allowed success...."

Ok, let's let this straight, Senator Obama:  the occupation of Iraq was NEVER going to work, no matter how well-managed.  This is not the age of the British Empire, circa 1880:  the Iraqis were ALWAYS going to be happy about the overthrow of Saddam and were ALWAYS going to be unhappy about an American occupation and/or pro-American puppet government.  Put down your copy of Rudyard Kipling's "The White Man's Burden" and repeat after me:  "It is illegal and immoral to invade and occupy other sovereign nations unless they attacked you first."  Yeesh.

And the capper:

Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007.
Voting YEA on this amendment would establish a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Voting NAY would keep the current situation without a timetable. The amendment states:

   1. The President shall redeploy, commencing in 2006, US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces and conducting specialized counterterrorism operations.
   2. The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.
   3. Within 30 days, the administration shall submit to Congress a report that sets forth the strategy for the redeployment of US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007.

Obama SAYS he would have voted against authorising Bush to attack Iraq, BUT now that the US is in Iraq, Obama opposes establishing a timetable for withdrawal.

All information from here:

Obama on the Issues

Now, given all that, I do admit that Obama might, in the 2008 race, be the best of a bad lot.  Let us remember that former Senator John Edwards has apologised for his vote authorising the invasion of Iraq, but he DID vote for it at the time, even though many of us "ordinary" citizens knew the "evidence" justifyng the invasion was a raft of lies and half-truths.

But can we please stop pretending that President Obama is going to get us out of Iraq?  He's already threatened to attack Iran and Pakistan, the first country a nuclear power wannabe and the second one an actual nuclear power.  He's already expressed sympathy for President Bush's sincerity and mourned that the occupation wasn't better-managed.

President Obama, President Clinton, President Edwards, President Romney, President Giuliani, President McCain, it's all the same:  the National Security State marches on and the US retains its imperial possessions.

Remember why Bush invaded Iraq and you will understand why the US is not leaving there.  The US has a voracious appetite for the world's dwindling supply of oil.  The corporations that finance both the Democratic and Republican parties have reaped hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in the four years since the invasion, and they are just getting started with their profit-taking.  

US corporations have signed 25-year agreements to take Iraqi oil.  Who will protect their investments?  Iraqi soldiers?  Not bloody likely.  US soldiers will be misused as mercenaries to guard corporate interests abroad, as they have been so many times in the past.

Let us PLEASE stop all this talk of a US withdrawal from Iraq under ANY President.  It just isn't going to happen.  If President Obama tried (which he won't), he'd be ruined, impeached, or assassinated--you pick which one, it's all the same in the end.  And Obama's a smart man who knows very well the rules of the game he is playing.

Visit me at The Blogging Curmudgeon