The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Obama rewrites Iraq plan - Changes withdrawl timeline
politico.com — Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) promised primary voters a swift withdrawal from Iraq, in clear language still on his Web site: “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.” Not anymore.
Mankind121- 531 diggs
- digg it
- trackerbishop, on 07/03/2008, -75/+48Beat me to it. This Ron Paul supporter is not surprised at all. Obama = Hitlery = McCain = Bush => Obama = Bush but with a better vocabular.
When will Obama supporters realize that they're voting for an AIPAC, neocon puppet and there is no REAL choice in this election?- chispito, on 07/03/2008, -28/+13Neocon puppet? Do you even know what neocon is supposed to mean or do you just use it to describe anybody that isn't a stark raving moonbat?
- medfreak, on 07/04/2008, -8/+23Don't worry, you will soon get your first Neolib. Two faces for the same coin.
- swrostmore, on 07/04/2008, -12/+15This is nothing new, and its not a change in Obama's position - he's consistently said that 16 months is a "goal" that could change based on advice from commanders on the ground.
January 31, 2007- "the withdrawal COULD BE TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED if the Iraqi government meets a series of benchmarks laid out by the Bush administration."
Aug. 19 2007 - Obama "agreed in a debate this morning that pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq can't be accomplished in just a few months and that any withdrawal MUST BE BALANCED BY SECURITY CONCERNS."
Sept. 10 2007 -"According to Obama's bill, redeployment of U.S. forces is "SUBJECT TO THE EXCEPTIONS for retention of forces"
Spet. 13 2007- "Several of his Democratic rivals, though, said yesterday that Obama was taking a step backward by NOT IMPOSING A SPECIFIC DEADLINE for withdrawal."- eohano, on 07/05/2008, -5/+7So why did he say 16 months, if he knew it probably wouldn't happen that fast?
- compulsive1, on 07/05/2008, -1/+6So what makes this double talking politician any different than the scores that came before him?
You just exposed him as a typical "say anything to get votes, sneak in qualifications so that you always have a way out" type hypocrite. Majority who voted for him are not good at reading between the lines. I see a lot of hate coming his way once people realize he duped them into voting for him and he is not who they thought would be.
People will not easily forget their hopes for this "different type of politician". The bitterness will be enormous.
- eohano, on 07/05/2008, -5/+7So why did he say 16 months, if he knew it probably wouldn't happen that fast?
- TheTaoOfBill, on 07/04/2008, -11/+14I've been against this war from the start as has Obama. But I acknowledge there has been progress and if victory is within reach there isn't any reason for a sudden pullout. And if Obama is willing to listen to commanders and change his stradegy based on expert opinion (unlike the current president) then this makes me respect the man even more.
BTW I was a Ron Paul supporter. But give it up. He dropped out. He's no longer pursuing the presidentcy. Try to get your local Ron Paul supporter in congress and pick a different presidential candidate to support.
My vote, however, is going to Obama and this showing that he is not a stubborn ***** and is willing to listen to people who know more than him is making me prouder than ever to say that.- dOOBiEx213, on 07/05/2008, -3/+8Victory is NOT within reach...
- eohano, on 07/05/2008, -1/+5How can you support Ron Paul and Obama? Do you people realize ANYTHING about politics? They're complete opposites! They agree with their views on the war, abortion, and a very limited number of other things, however they disagree on most other things.
Ron Paul is a libertarian constitutionalist, Obama is a Liberal Democrat.
Ron Paul supports the Second Amendment and thinks that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms, Obama wants to create much stricter firearms rules, regulations, and bans.
etc.
The thing I dislike about Obama is that he doesn't say what he wants to DO about the issues. He talks about them, but doesn't say what is plans are to change it. Example, the first "Issue" on Obama's website - Civil Rights:
"PLAN TO STRENGTHEN CIVIL RIGHTS
“The teenagers and college students who left their homes to march in the streets of Birmingham and Montgomery; the mothers who walked instead of taking the bus after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry and cleaning somebody else's kitchen — they didn't brave fire hoses and Billy clubs so that their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren would still wonder at the beginning of the 21st century whether their vote would be counted; whether their civil rights would be protected by their government; whether justice would be equal and opportunity would be theirs. . . . We have more work to do.”
That's great. It's a powerful speech, and Obama is a great speaker and good person, but this isn't what it's titled, this is NOT a PLAN to strengthen Civil Rights! In order to change something in the way that he wants to, you have to pass laws and regulations. You have to spend money or enforce something different, all of which create two things: higher taxes and fewer freedoms. What this "plan" is, is more like an introductory paragraph to a plan to strengthen Civil Rights, a way to convince people that something needs to be done, it is not an actual plan. You can't implement "more work to do". So far as I can see, all of Obama's "Plans" are the exact same way.
Obama has the same rallying call as the Democratic Congress we just elected: "Change". What have they done, though? This congress hasn't done much. I'm sure that they want to implement change, but they don't have a plan. They don't know how. As such, nothing will ever get done.
Obama is not the president that America needs. Especially not now, with a Democrat-controlled congress. The constitution outlines a system of "checks and balances", which does no good when everyone is from the same party. Checks and balances involve the President, the Congress, and - oh, the Supreme Court. Look at the Supreme Court now. We are not only electing a president for the next 4 or 8 years, we are essentially appointing Supreme Court Justices FOR LIFE. And when Democrats own the Congress, Supreme Court, and the Presidency, where will the checks and balances be? I would rather see proper checks and balances than have all three branches be controlled by ANY party.
Also, McCain is not the president America needs. I probably don't need to tell you guys why.
I believe that Ron Paul was as close as we were going to get to an acceptable president, except, America, you blew your chance. Congratulations. - nycmac247, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3LOL
"almost there...""....alllmost there..." "we're rounding a corner" "the tide is turning..."
(keep repeating to hypnotize self)
- wacomwacoff, on 07/05/2008, -11/+6Obama is the farthest thing from a neocon there is in this election. Are you that blind?
He hasn't changed his position. - phrenzy, on 07/05/2008, -6/+1Use of term "Hitlery" = automatic invalidation of the rest of your argument as words of a rambling idiot.
- aookay, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1hey guys, i'm going to compare someone to hitler because that gets attention!
That's me impersonating you.
- JointVenture, on 07/03/2008, -59/+79He said the surge was a disaster and that he would bring the troops home in 6 months.
There are dozens, if not 100's of quotes where he says the surge and Iraq are a disaster.
Now hes going to come back from Iraq and have to tell the truth.- superkendall, on 07/03/2008, -21/+22Very true, though honestly Obama coming around on Iraq makes me think more of him as a humanitarian, although somewhat less as an honest person.
The real problem is that if he was just paying lip service to the left in saying the surge would not work, how can we be sure he's not just paying lip service now by saying he might support Iraq and the people there? All too easy for him to pull the rug out anyway if elected, what's one more switch after all?- BECoole, on 07/05/2008, -4/+4He wasn't paying lip service. He's either an idiot or he was flat-out lying.
- ouzome, on 07/05/2008, -3/+3Give me a break, that humanitarian spin makes me want to puke. Bottom line, he has no idea what he's talking about, and now he has to admit that to you blind lovers.
- DWalla, on 07/03/2008, -19/+25Yup.... can you imagine him as Commander-in-Chief?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=l4vlBgh7KLg- erikwithaknotac, on 07/05/2008, -7/+10YES I CAN!
But seriously...I do trust his judgement. - jahurt, on 07/05/2008, -5/+16Given the alternative, yes.
- erikwithaknotac, on 07/05/2008, -7/+10YES I CAN!
- Hortnon, on 07/03/2008, -26/+11And if he admits he was wrong before, can you at least pretend to respect him a little more? Or can we just expect the far-right to continue to hate him unconditionally?
- PolishLogic, on 07/05/2008, -6/+7They call that a flip-flop when McCain is concerned. Just trying to keep the theme going.
- zombies187, on 07/05/2008, -2/+10Adjusting your plans based on new information is not something the Republicans want in a candidate. Its a flaw they see in Democrats. Better just keep doing the right thing and let them say its a flip flop.
- stonewaljacksn, on 07/05/2008, -1/+4gimme a frickin break man. people bring up legitimate points and you assume that they are far-righters who hate him unconditionally?? stop being so blind! i'm a liberal who watched the speech in 2004 and wished he was running instead of kerry...i signed the petition to draft him and prayed to god he would run...and THEN i realized i had no idea what he was about and i started questioning him.
what i saw was a lack of substance beneath a brilliant, perfectly marketable front, and that makes him a PERFECT puppet for powerful special interests (kind of like the bilderbergers he was hanging out with) what i saw was someone who is absolutely Down with the REAL monarchs of our society: the Bankers who control our money, who profit from war and increased government spending(welfare state!!). check how much wall street threw his way and notice how he's pretty tight with the rockefellers.
he is more of an establishment candidate than john mccain, and that pisses me the ***** off.
I don't care how much he admits he was wrong. That's nothing more than a ploy to seem like a "different" kind of candidate in stark contrast to the retardedly stubborn Bush Admin.
Maybe you should question your unconditional love for him? - zombies187, on 07/06/2008, -2/+1stonewaljackson, you don't seem like a liberal. In fact just a few comments ago you endorsed Ron Paul. You should wise up and vote for someone who is running.
- stonewaljacksn, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1hahahaha zombies, wow.
I am a liberal, although perhaps I've taken liberty with the definition. I WAS an absolute blind democrat loving bush hating "liberal" in 2004. In the time since i still agree with the CURRENT liberals more for the most part only because of the infringement of religion on the right.
Morally, I am an absolute ultra-liberal. Fiscally, I am a conservative IN TERMS OF GOVERNMENT. People should help each other by being liberal with their own money and not through tax-and-spend. Essentially yes, I am a more libertarian leaning than anything, but i consider myself a liberal, I'm not a religious nut but I'm not a big socialist. I just believe in freedom when it comes to government. They should impose on us as little as possible, but at the same time we need to take it upon OURSELVES to take care of the world instead of the stereotypical liberal whining to the government about everything. That just makes us unfree. Think about it.
Perhaps you should wise up and stop getting gamed by the establishment. It's the fakeass blind sheep liberals who made me distance myself from that entire side of the spectrum. - zombies187, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1So in terms of government, you are a free market capitalist libertarian. I still don't see how you are liberal. Morally a liberal? I'm not sure what you mean. What role does government play in your opinion?
- fool13, on 07/04/2008, -17/+19Obama's key selling point was his position on the war. Now that the war isn't a complete disaster that position is clearly the wrong one to be taking - for the good of the country. It's the right position to take but hes doing it for the wrong reasons - it's a flip flop.
- foontala, on 07/04/2008, -18/+9The "war" IS a complete disaster:
we are less safe, we are broke and jobless, the dollar is crap, so many have died, the "reasons" for the war were lies, it was a war of aggression, we are losing our liberties (as Eisenhower warned), Al Qaeda is stronger than ever, most everyone in Europe hates Americans (just go and see), and we haven't even begun to see the blowback yet.
I used to like Obama because I thought he understood that we AND the Iraqi people are less safe because of our presence in Iraq, and that he would bring us back. Now he's flip flopped and taken "neocon" like positions on the middle east:
see
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_cont ...
and
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_cont ...
I don't understand what happened, but he's a totally different person all the sudden. - Kizilbash, on 07/04/2008, -13/+16The war is still a ***** disaster. Do all the dead Iraqis suddenly get undead now? There are at least 2 million Iraqis that have fled the country and they have no intention of returning any time soon. If they will however, which seems likely to happen in the end as Syria and Jordan cannot support them and they are running out of money and there is no way the country responsible for ***** up Iraq is going to own up to its responsibility in this, they are going to find that their homes are now occupied by a family of the other sectarian/ethnic group. They will either be killed or kill. This whole surge ***** is going to run out of steam and will prove to be just a relative calm in between. Especially since the other main reason it was calm is because the US bribed Sunni insurgents not to fight them, which is not going to last forever either. The only reason Bush implemented the whole surge in the first place was to be able to hand Iraq to his successor.
- zombies187, on 07/05/2008, -5/+2Obamas key selling point was NOT his position on the war. Everyone knows he always planned on leaving troops in Iraq in an advisory role. There was never a plan for a complete pullout. Electing Obama is choosing to KEEP troops there for four to eight years. Nobody thought he was going to end the war. Oh, I heard from republicans that he was going to pull out all troops immediately. But they were wrong then and they're wrong now. You can tell me I should be disappointed but I am getting just what I thought I would get. Policies that MOST Americans want. McCains policies are not popular. The fact that he sticks with them even though America doesn't like it is NOT impressive.
- there, on 07/05/2008, -3/+4@fool13
.........
"Obama's key selling point was his position on the war. Now that the war isn't a complete disaster that position is clearly the wrong one to be taking"
.........
Hundreds of thousands dead? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent?(potentially trillions) Devaluated currency and inflation. Still plenty of terrorism going on. Where's the perp Osama again? Oops forgot about him didn't we?(too busy in attacking Iraq... which had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and (9/11) Of course Osama would never think to attack us again. And my how much safer we are with poll-after-poll saying how most of the world hates us now.
Naw... not a disaster at all all.
.........
"It's the right position to take but hes doing it for the wrong reasons - it's a flip flop"
.........
In the article you supposedly just read.....
"I have said throughout this campaign that ... I would bring our troops home at a pace of one to two brigades per month and at that pace we would have our combat troops out in 16 months. That position has not changed. I have not equivocated on that position. I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position."
Him commenting about "refining" that doesn't mean he's changed his position. If he starts saying 32 months... or maybe we should stay... that would be changing his position.
So Fool13 did you actually bother reading the article? Or did you just automatically assume a Digg title by some nameless shmoe with an agenda and no accountability equals truth?
- foontala, on 07/04/2008, -18/+9The "war" IS a complete disaster:
- Pssdoff, on 07/04/2008, -18/+16INCORRECT!
Bringing the troops home is what Ron Paul would have done.
Obama has only promised all combat troops in Iraq to be redeployed by 2009
Only a ***** moron wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two of these incredibly different positions. Do the Obama fans realize what the word 'redeployed' means?- DavidHalko, on 07/04/2008, -2/+9We have gone from 2009 to 2010... do we have a 2011?
- omegaant, on 07/05/2008, -1/+7It's still about oil - protecting that territory - people are so confused! Seems like RP was the only one who dared to suggest we simply "march out" of there. All the rest, Obama included, are backing off...
- theelectricafro, on 07/05/2008, -4/+5Re-Deploy in Obamaspeak means to move from Iraq to Iran and/or Pakistan.
- bababoosh, on 07/05/2008, -1/+5"Re-Deploy in Obamaspeak means to move from Iraq to Iran and/or Pakistan."
Or Afghanistan, where they should have been in the first place. Where HE HAS said that they should have been.
- throop77, on 07/05/2008, -11/+25Iraq IS a disaster. 1 million dead, 4 million chased from their homes, every neighborhood divided along ethnic lines and separated by concrete barriers... Its sad people call that success.
- mtanis, on 07/05/2008, -13/+8so you have been there and seen every neighborhood divided? well at least obama will be able to verify this fact.
- SQLserver, on 07/05/2008, -4/+8I hate to sound like money is more important then people, but DON'T FORGET ABOUT THE TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS!
Bill Clinton almost eliminated the National Debt.
8 years later...
Plus 200 million $$ PER DAY!!
If we were to stop this war for one day, we could do so much with the saved money. - BloodWenis, on 07/05/2008, -0/+9The Clinton administration balanced the federal budget, NOT the national debt. Enormous difference.
- Metalmoon, on 07/05/2008, -1/+4"Bill Clinton almost eliminated the National Debt."
No he didn't. He created a budget surplus for a few years, but came no where near to eliminating the national debt.
That's not to say that Reagan, Bush and Bush II haven't been catastrophic in terms of adding on to the debt. Check this chart out.
http://www.cedarcomm.com/%7Estevelm1/usdebt.png
- BotchaMcCoola, on 07/05/2008, -8/+5Oh the surge is working again is it – maybe if you have a lot
of Lockheed Martin stock. The surge is still costing us $2-3 billion
perweek (yes BILLION and PER WEEK) in damages to USA prosperity -
and without hope of any benefits to the US. Of course Obama is no
betterthan McCain. Be an Uberpatriot and support every Libertarian that
you can or the existing politicians will spend and bomb us into the
1900s again.- MaxterICC, on 07/05/2008, -2/+0citations please
- SQLserver, on 07/05/2008, -2/+2The problem with Libertarians like you is, at first you agree with them. You are like "Yeah, that's right!".
THEN, they do something like:
"Ron Paul is the only one who can fix this"
And you are like: "No. Ron Paul is JAF politician, and a super-theocratic to boot.
and then they say:
"Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Conservatives, it is all the same!"
And you are like: "Wait. What country do you live in? Conservatives take away every right possible. Liberals make it harder for maniacs to get guns, that's it. Conservatives try and make America a Theocracy. Liberals respect the 1st Amendment.
And THEN they say:
"And, finally, Socialism is the root of all evil"
And by this point you've dugg them down.
I hate this phenomenom. It is always:
"Dang. I was with you until the paranoid, fear-mongering Libertarian *****" - BotchaMcCoola, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Max:divide the 162 billion war spending bill Bush signed by 52 weeks.
There was some miscellaneous Democrat overspending pork in it but it is
about 3 billion per week among friends.
SQL: how about the Hawks
trying to get us all afraid of ME paramilitaries and local militias that
have no flying carpets or other ways to harm us. People like me
are not frightened of such things. If any foreigners occupy the US
they will get a little demo of what real and effective
patriotic homeland protection looks like. I think the paranoia around
Libertarians is that the small central government idea gives nightmares
to the current politicians and their media enablers and allies. I think
you are being taken in by them.
- incabulos, on 07/05/2008, -3/+9As far as I can tell, there has been no flip flopping. Anyone else see the Chewbacca offense going on here?
- riseabove, on 07/05/2008, -4/+4***** you, mccain spammer
- superkendall, on 07/03/2008, -21/+22Very true, though honestly Obama coming around on Iraq makes me think more of him as a humanitarian, although somewhat less as an honest person.
- triclipse, on 07/03/2008, -46/+25Only Ron Paul will end the war(s). Only Ron Paul will work to end America's slow slide into fiat currency slavery. Only Ron Paul will stop Big Brother.
Can't you Obama sheeple see the light now? YOU ARE BEING MANIPULATED.- chispito, on 07/03/2008, -14/+5The digg-down-o-meter is going crazy with so many instances of "Ron Paul" and even "sheeple."
- DanThePainter, on 07/04/2008, -10/+6You're a bit behind the times. Dr. Paul has left the building.
- Nidy1, on 07/05/2008, -5/+7Can't you Ron Paul people understand that we all don't agree with his policies?
- mtrip, on 07/05/2008, -4/+2Get off your knees and take Ron Paul's nuts out of your mouth. You people love the velvet robe and scepter i.e. your 'Great Leader.' Worshiping a human being makes you no better than a serf.
- babar77, on 07/05/2008, -1/+2Manipulated? Obama has been saying the EXACT SAME THING FOR MONTHS!
Did everyone just decide to start listening or something?
This is proving how unbelievably stupid the American People are, and why we keep electing morons to office.
- mediaspree, on 07/03/2008, -79/+158I guess one way to bring about change is to change your positions a couple of times.
- Hortnon, on 07/03/2008, -22/+10Because a guy that's unwilling to admit fault and tell everyone he knows what's best no matter what is what we need, right?
We've already got that, and, well....- psiege, on 07/03/2008, -10/+17According to his second press conference, he's not willing to admit fault. This is no different than the Wright situation. With each speech he gave, the story changed 180 degrees. Wake up man.
- Pillage, on 07/04/2008, -18/+35He's just like slick Willy, he tells something different to each crowd he talks to.
- known, on 07/04/2008, -15/+11I get a feeling that Obama is suffering from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personal ... - userperson, on 07/05/2008, -6/+12Yes, we can. /s
- InetRoadkill, on 07/05/2008, -13/+30Obama is turning into an increasing disappointment with each day. His lack of interest in defeating FISA, his flip-flopping on Iraq, his pandering to the religious right, his oath of allegiance to AIPAC, and his diminishing interest in investigating/prosecuting Bushco for their evil deeds makes me wonder what this change is he talks about. The closer we get to November, the more this change sounds like the same old *****.
- wacomwacoff, on 07/05/2008, -20/+21Except that he HASN'T changed his position.
- userperson, on 07/05/2008, -4/+4"We've always been at war with Eastasia."
- NyteStarNyne, on 07/05/2008, -9/+14What a disappointment. I find it a little funny that he's destroying his own campaign with no help from McCain at all. Changing your positions on so many issues only shows that you're just not ready for prime time, and I think more and more people will realize this.
I didn't vote for the guy in the primaries, but I was "hopeful" about him. Same *****, same ***** pile, different day. - Xcel, on 07/05/2008, -13/+8Ron Paul wouldn't have lied.
- DavidThaGnome, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1No joke man, I just thumbed up your post and i ***** you not it went from -2 to -3. WTF is up with that???
Ok i just thumbed up the post above yours by user person and the same thing happened. Is there some legitimate reason why I would lose all digg up abilities???
WTF
OK seriously WTF i just thumbed up incabulos post right below you and it went up. Is digg screening or scewing posts diggs for some reason?
I feel like im taking crazy pills!!! - DogBotherer, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1I'd guess that in the time you were reading the page since it last refreshed two people voted it down.
- DavidThaGnome, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1No joke man, I just thumbed up your post and i ***** you not it went from -2 to -3. WTF is up with that???
- incabulos, on 07/05/2008, -6/+15What are you talking about? What position changed? He's still bringing the troops home. What the hell?
- stonewaljacksn, on 07/05/2008, -4/+5wake up he's a globalist puppet=he will forever pander to israel=we will be throughout the middle east for his entire term at LEAST.
bring the troops home...HA!! kinda sounds like nixons peace with honor plan...
- stonewaljacksn, on 07/05/2008, -4/+5wake up he's a globalist puppet=he will forever pander to israel=we will be throughout the middle east for his entire term at LEAST.
- mattlreese, on 07/05/2008, -6/+13As others have said have you actually read the article or just the brief description under the headline on the main digg page. Obama has not changed his position and the description is not in anyway actualy related to what the article actually says. This is the kind of crap I would expect from fox news.
- stonewaljacksn, on 07/05/2008, -7/+6to all the douchebags who digg sensationalist anti-mccain articles to hell: How does it feel suckers?
well well well aint that some *****...looks like the obama fad on digg grew too big and is now turning on itself. anyone with half a brain woulda questioned obama and saw this stuff coming months in advance. congratulations, after all your bitching about how stupid, ignorant, and blind americans are for not LOVING obama...it looks like you were the ones blinding yourselves all along.
go ahead herd, digg me down. ive been questioning obama here since day one...so im used to being hated and buried. but let me tell you i am frickin LOVING this recent turn of events.
"AMERICANS ARE SO BLIND AND STUPID WAAAHHHH SO IM GONNA VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT BECAUSE IM ENLIGHTENED WAAAHHHH STUPID REPUBLICANS ARE THE SOURCE OF ALL EVIL" ....hahahahahaha. God I fear for my country.- Hollic, on 07/05/2008, -5/+2Stonewall Jackson... I hear you lost.
- Hortnon, on 07/03/2008, -22/+10Because a guy that's unwilling to admit fault and tell everyone he knows what's best no matter what is what we need, right?
- Kerath, on 07/03/2008, -52/+146The headline makes it seem like a bad thing, but if you read on, it says "He is reevaluating his plan and will incorporate advice from commanders on the ground when he visits Iraq later this month."
And that's just good sense. Obama will actually use real information to make decisions, as opposed to the current administration's fantasies and information deficiency.- superkendall, on 07/03/2008, -21/+39But the current administration is now using information from commanders on the ground, just like Obama wants to...
- benintn, on 07/04/2008, -6/+18Obama held another press conference yesterday afternoon (7/3) to explain where he stands on Iraq:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3TVL6LSJVE
---
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/no ...
Here's the quote that Charles Gibson referenced in the April 22 debate:
On a conference call with reporters earlier Friday Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said Obama has been "crystal clear with the American people that if and when he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in - as he said, the time frame would be about 16 months at the most where you withdraw troops. There should be no confusion about that with absolute clarity."
Here's how Gibson phrased it:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/07/obama ...
Charles Gibson: And, Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, "When he is" -- this is talking about you -- "When he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. There should be no confusion about that."
So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?
---
So, did Gibson get the quote right?
No.
Plouffe said, "the time frame would be about 16 months at the most where you withdraw troops. There should be no confusion about that with absolute clarity." How do they get the 16-month number? The plan is to withdraw 1-2 brigades per month. That's how.
---
And Obama's response was to Gibson on 4/22 at the debate was, "Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And, unfortunately, we have had a bad mission set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer. Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics, once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately, in an orderly fashion, out of Iraq, and we are going to have our combat troops out. We will not have permanent bases there. Once I have provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. But, ultimately, the buck stops with me as the commander-in-chief."
----
So, the point that Obama and Plouffe and everyone else has been making is this: There will be a change in strategy "if and when Obama is elected." The targeted timeframe would be about 16 months. The intention of the Obama foreign policy platform is to stop fighting proxy wars in Iraq, to stop trying to play "police officer" in Iraq, and to focus on US national security instead of "nation building" or "extending freedom" to nations that don't want us there.
---
Jed Report has a good video showing the hypocrisy of the CNN pseudojournalist Jennifer Yellin (who seems really eager to make something out of nothing):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/4/01755/83281 ...
---
And here's an exchange between the ever-smug Joe Scarborough, the brilliant but outmanned Rachel Maddow, and others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UiF6xvKYBo
---
And here's an Obama campaign Fact Check:
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/07 ... - Phlake, on 07/05/2008, -2/+3tl;dr
- pintomp3, on 07/05/2008, -1/+3the current administration changes commanders every time the commander doesn't tell them what they want to hear. how many have they gone through already?
- benintn, on 07/04/2008, -6/+18Obama held another press conference yesterday afternoon (7/3) to explain where he stands on Iraq:
- psiege, on 07/03/2008, -32/+24Keep spinning Obamabot. Spin like a top until you're too dizzy to vote in November.
- Kerath, on 07/05/2008, -7/+14Are you saying I'm an "Obamabot"? I'm just sicking of Republicans skull-***** my country. Take a break from internet condescension and look around.
- edyang, on 07/03/2008, -29/+41Funny how to liberals, it's not flip flopping, it's "good sense", it's "Informed decision making".
I'll take a side of hypocrisy to go please.- Neiby, on 07/03/2008, -11/+20I'm an Obama supporter, but I still agree with you. This is exactly the sort of thing that the left would call a flip-flop if someone on the right had done it. To be fair, both sides do this. It does bother me a bit that he's already setting himself up to go back on some of his campaign promises. Typical politician, I suppose.
- chispito, on 07/03/2008, -8/+12This is not just typical, it's textbook. Extreme for the primary, centrist for the election.
Surprisingly, McCain hasn't really thrown too many bones to the conservatives, not even while the primaries were on. I can't tell if that's because he's the Maverick or because he's going to swing even harder to the center. - benintn, on 07/04/2008, -10/+3Obama held another press conference yesterday afternoon (7/3) to explain where he stands on Iraq:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3TVL6LSJVE
---
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/no ...
Here's the quote that Charles Gibson referenced in the April 22 debate:
On a conference call with reporters earlier Friday Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said Obama has been "crystal clear with the American people that if and when he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in - as he said, the time frame would be about 16 months at the most where you withdraw troops. There should be no confusion about that with absolute clarity."
Here's how Gibson phrased it:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/07/obama ...
Charles Gibson: And, Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, "When he is" -- this is talking about you -- "When he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. There should be no confusion about that."
So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?
---
So, did Gibson get the quote right?
No.
Plouffe said, "the time frame would be about 16 months at the most where you withdraw troops. There should be no confusion about that with absolute clarity." How do they get the 16-month number? The plan is to withdraw 1-2 brigades per month. That's how.
---
And Obama's response was to Gibson on 4/22 at the debate was, "Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And, unfortunately, we have had a bad mission set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer. Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics, once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately, in an orderly fashion, out of Iraq, and we are going to have our combat troops out. We will not have permanent bases there. Once I have provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. But, ultimately, the buck stops with me as the commander-in-chief."
----
So, the point that Obama and Plouffe and everyone else has been making is this: There will be a change in strategy "if and when Obama is elected." The targeted timeframe would be about 16 months. The intention of the Obama foreign policy platform is to stop fighting proxy wars in Iraq, to stop trying to play "police officer" in Iraq, and to focus on US national security instead of "nation building" or "extending freedom" to nations that don't want us there.
---
Jed Report has a good video showing the hypocrisy of the CNN pseudojournalist Jennifer Yellin (who seems really eager to make something out of nothing):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/4/01755/83281 ...
---
And here's an exchange between the ever-smug Joe Scarborough, the brilliant but outmanned Rachel Maddow, and others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UiF6xvKYBo
---
And here's an Obama campaign Fact Check:
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/07 ... - Kerath, on 07/05/2008, -7/+8This is not flip-flopping; it's refinement. Flip-flopping would be if O decided the war was good after all.
- Falldog, on 07/05/2008, -3/+5There's a difference between changing viewpoints to appease voters and changing viewpoints after careful consideration.
- WasabiBomb, on 07/05/2008, -3/+2Wrong. It's been "informed decision making" all along. It's the REPUBLICANS who call it "flip flopping"- that was one of the weapons they used against Kerry, remember? Now, Democrats call it "flip flopping" when a Republican does it- to point out the hypocrisy.
Republicans made it a bad thing to change your position based on new evidence- now you've got to deal with being called on the *****. Stop calling it "flip flopping", and we'll stop calling it "flip flopping" when your guy does it.
I'm getting really tired of Republicans crying foul when they get called on the same ***** they've been pulling on Dems for years. - edyang, on 07/06/2008, -0/+0Pass the Kool-Aid WasabiBomb...
- swrostmore, on 07/04/2008, -5/+25not only that, it's what he's consistently said since he announced his Iraq policy. He's always said his timeline would have the "goal" of 16 months, but he would listen to commanders on the ground to work out the specific timing. Neocons are only attacking him on it because it conflicts with their straw man image of Obama as a fire-breathing liberal.
January 31, 2007- "the withdrawal COULD BE TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED if the Iraqi government meets a series of benchmarks laid out by the Bush administration."
Aug. 19 2007 - Obama "agreed in a debate this morning that pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq can't be accomplished in just a few months and that any withdrawal MUST BE BALANCED BY SECURITY CONCERNS."
Sept. 10 2007 -"According to Obama's bill, redeployment of U.S. forces is "SUBJECT TO THE EXCEPTIONS for retention of forces"
Spet. 13 2007- "Several of his Democratic rivals, though, said yesterday that Obama was taking a step backward by NOT IMPOSING A SPECIFIC DEADLINE for withdrawal." - TheInformer, on 07/05/2008, -10/+7"And that's just good sense. Obama will actually use real information to make decisions, as opposed to the current administration's fantasies and information deficiency."
Then why not say something like "I will base my opinion on the conditions in Iraq" as opposed to the comments he made during and prior to the Democratic primary? He took a hard stand and now is going to backpedal from it, and his myrmidons will accept whatever he says without question - "that's just good sense" as opposed to "why didn't he have that position all along?"
Btw, the current administration has the information that you and me don't have. They have the information that Obama doesn't have. Watch Obama change his position once he sees what is going on. The candidate of change will change his position. Again.- zombies187, on 07/05/2008, -1/+2They have the information that Obama doesn't have. Watch Obama change his position once he sees what is going on.
Good! I don't want him to follow a recipe. I want him to make decisions. - jahurt, on 07/05/2008, -1/+3Funny how Congress allegedly had the same information the President had when they passed the Iraq War Resolution, but now "they (the administration) have the information that Obama doesn't have".
Which is it?
- zombies187, on 07/05/2008, -1/+2They have the information that Obama doesn't have. Watch Obama change his position once he sees what is going on.
- Catsmacking, on 07/05/2008, -4/+8TheInformer- He has said it throughout the primary. Look above at the quotes. In fact I think Obama has specifically said he would look at the conditions and that it was "just good sense". Each time he did so during the primary people/the news would try to spin it as if he was recanting his position. Good thing to know that people are able to evaluate the actual statements without falling for a summary.
- Stormwern, on 07/05/2008, -2/+3Let's wait and see what the changes are, if there even are any. That he'd protest the war for five years and now doesn't want to end it doesn't make any sense, so most likely more of a technicality.
- incabulos, on 07/05/2008, -2/+5Finally someone who at least attempted to read the article. The author of this article has set up a confusing argument where there has been no flip flop. Obama is getting information from the ground to fine tune his plan to get the troops home. I missed the part where he "rewrites Iraq Plan" and leaves our troops in hell for the next 100 years.
- BECoole, on 07/05/2008, -5/+5Funny how Obama's new position on Iraq is exactly like Bush's current position.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Of course it is good sense to speak to the commanders BUT if he wanted to take a solid "get of Iraq" position he would say that as soon as he gets into office he would order the commanders to move the troops out as fast as they can safely.
Even him saying this for definite now would have a positive impact right now if it looks like he is the next president.
- superkendall, on 07/03/2008, -21/+39But the current administration is now using information from commanders on the ground, just like Obama wants to...
- leexy, on 07/03/2008, -39/+29Anyone surprised by this is an utter and complete idiot.
Now, granted, Obama may seem like a boyscout compared to McCain, but his principles are no different than every other president of the last 100 years; namely, US hegemony and interventionism.- chispito, on 07/03/2008, -9/+10Well we already intervened. It's probably more about not letting an entire country and to some degree, a region, go to pot just to appease the far left.
- foontala, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3What about the 85+% of the Iraqi public that wants us out NOW, leaving no permanent bases?????
Get off your left/right horse, it's totally ridiculous and not even well-defined anymore. - chispito, on 07/04/2008, -1/+0Source?
- foontala, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3What about the 85+% of the Iraqi public that wants us out NOW, leaving no permanent bases?????
- chispito, on 07/03/2008, -9/+10Well we already intervened. It's probably more about not letting an entire country and to some degree, a region, go to pot just to appease the far left.
- GhostyBoy, on 07/03/2008, -73/+105We tried to tell you.
- superkendall, on 07/03/2008, -19/+28Seriously, I've posted before that Obama was going to change on Iraq. This was obvious to anyone paying attention there, he simply could not ignore the progress there much longer and look reasonable to the populace.
- GhostyBoy, on 07/03/2008, -18/+14Progress in Iraq? I don't think so.
You are making zero progress until you start bringing the troops home. - chispito, on 07/03/2008, -15/+20Well, to some people progress means stability in the country, an ever improving military and police force, cooperation between distinct religious groups and a government that is willing to take initiative.
To you, progress must simply mean to make America look bad by not finishing what we started. - Hortnon, on 07/03/2008, -10/+6Personally, I had seen the intention to make this kind of move by Obama coming from a mile away.
Now that he's going to Iraq and will be able to see firsthand the situation there, if he's willing to openly change his position I'm all for it.
- GhostyBoy, on 07/03/2008, -18/+14Progress in Iraq? I don't think so.
- fajitamelt, on 07/04/2008, -15/+27This is great! I thought I'd never see the day where the anti-Obama diggers would finally rise up and take control. The Obama articles are getting old.
- dxgg, on 07/05/2008, -6/+7Disagreeing with Obama doesn't make somebody anti-Obama any more than disagreeing with the course of America makes somebody anti-American.
- joe39275, on 07/05/2008, -1/+1REVOLUTION!!
- Kangalanatolian, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Yea, it is a little satisfying. But it would be better if we could make it a little less mob rule, and a little more informative. Now that we have experienced the downside of the mob rule part...
- wacomwacoff, on 07/05/2008, -12/+7You tried to tell me that the neocon news would start spreading lies about Obama? Well, yeah, that's what I'm seeing, all right.
- chispito, on 07/06/2008, -2/+0They tried to tell you that his position was unrealistic and he would change after he got the moonbat vote in the primary.
- incabulos, on 07/05/2008, -8/+10Tried to tell who what? That Obama is a reasonable leader with reasonable expectations of adjusting a plan to withdraw troops from Iraq after talking to the commanders on the ground? Really... spin harder.
- Sinnic, on 07/05/2008, -4/+2Wow, how funny. Adjusting your promises to fit with political expediency. Yes he WILL!!!!!
- WasabiBomb, on 07/05/2008, -4/+9We tried to tell you, 8 years ago when you elected Bush. Then we tried to tell you again, when you re-elected Bush four years later.
Your track record really sucks, you know that?- Kangalanatolian, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1Your choice would have done the same thing for slightly different reasons. Clinton was guarding Iraq in 2000, and Kerry was not against the war in 2004. Obama got the polyanna vote. You know, those who thought we would really be given a choice.
Ron Paul got support because people could see that if ANYBODY could be trusted, this was it.
Only Chuck Baldwin has the integrity to carry it out, now. But I still have trouble seeing it working without Ron Paul on the ticket.
- Kangalanatolian, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1Your choice would have done the same thing for slightly different reasons. Clinton was guarding Iraq in 2000, and Kerry was not against the war in 2004. Obama got the polyanna vote. You know, those who thought we would really be given a choice.
- superkendall, on 07/03/2008, -19/+28Seriously, I've posted before that Obama was going to change on Iraq. This was obvious to anyone paying attention there, he simply could not ignore the progress there much longer and look reasonable to the populace.
- gradient01, on 07/03/2008, -66/+74It won't matter. His supporters are convinced that he's the new JFK, and this isn't going to change their minds even if the mainstream media does report this, which they won't. If Hillary had done something like this, or McCain, they would be getting crucified right now, and I can't help but wonder if Hillary would have gotten the nomination if she had been treated equally by the media. In any case, this isn't the first time he's flip-flopped and it sure isn't going to be the last. A different kind of politician my ass ...
- benintn, on 07/04/2008, -20/+6Obama held another press conference yesterday afternoon (7/3) to explain where he stands on Iraq:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3TVL6LSJVE
---
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/no ...
Here's the quote that Charles Gibson referenced in the April 22 debate:
On a conference call with reporters earlier Friday Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said Obama has been "crystal clear with the American people that if and when he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in - as he said, the time frame would be about 16 months at the most where you withdraw troops. There should be no confusion about that with absolute clarity."
Here's how Gibson phrased it:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/07/obama ...
Charles Gibson: And, Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, "When he is" -- this is talking about you -- "When he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. There should be no confusion about that."
So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?
---
So, did Gibson get the quote right?
No.
Plouffe said, "the time frame would be about 16 months at the most where you withdraw troops. There should be no confusion about that with absolute clarity." How do they get the 16-month number? The plan is to withdraw 1-2 brigades per month. That's how.
---
And Obama's response was to Gibson on 4/22 at the debate was, "Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And, unfortunately, we have had a bad mission set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer. Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics, once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately, in an orderly fashion, out of Iraq, and we are going to have our combat troops out. We will not have permanent bases there. Once I have provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. But, ultimately, the buck stops with me as the commander-in-chief."
----
So, the point that Obama and Plouffe and everyone else has been making is this: There will be a change in strategy "if and when Obama is elected." The targeted timeframe would be about 16 months. The intention of the Obama foreign policy platform is to stop fighting proxy wars in Iraq, to stop trying to play "police officer" in Iraq, and to focus on US national security instead of "nation building" or "extending freedom" to nations that don't want us there.
---
Jed Report has a good video showing the hypocrisy of the CNN pseudojournalist Jennifer Yellin (who seems really eager to make something out of nothing):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/4/01755/83281 ...
---
And here's an exchange between the ever-smug Joe Scarborough, the brilliant but outmanned Rachel Maddow, and others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UiF6xvKYBo
---
And here's an Obama campaign Fact Check:
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/07 ... - wacomwacoff, on 07/05/2008, -7/+7Don't know what the hell you're talking about, really. Obama hasn't changed his position. Did you read the article, or are you just spouting the same whiny crap?
- bjs3171, on 07/05/2008, -2/+4i hope it does report this. people need to know that he's a leader that actually, like, thinks. and evaluates his plans as he goes instead of just "staying the course".
- benintn, on 07/04/2008, -20/+6Obama held another press conference yesterday afternoon (7/3) to explain where he stands on Iraq:
- stevensj2, on 07/03/2008, -48/+45This country will always get the leader its people deserves.
When people turn off the TV, put down the Big Mac, and start intellectually stimulating themselves and becoming educated on the issues and their candidates, they should expect no more. They rely more on the news and campus fads than actual facts.
It would not surprise me if more people vote on American Idol than vote in the election.- fajitamelt, on 07/04/2008, -3/+10I'm pretty sure a person gets up to 10 votes for American Idol, never mind the teens and children that cannot vote for the President but can vote for a getting-old reality show.
- TheInformer, on 07/05/2008, -4/+12I find it sad that people Digg down your comment. That says more than anything else about the current state of intellectual honesty in this country.
- dha07030, on 07/05/2008, -4/+10Your comment makes me sad because it is true.
To the people who dung him down go grab another big mac.- thanakar, on 07/05/2008, -5/+1There is nothing wrong with a Big Mac, the key is moderation.
- NorthMass, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1That wasn't the point, sigh.
- Kangalanatolian, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Maybe he is trying to be witty, like you aren't a "moderate" or something. Whatever.
- sinfony, on 07/05/2008, -6/+2I think you should "intellectually stimulate" yourself into being able to write coherent sentences.
- aookay, on 07/05/2008, -0/+0Your sentence wasn't a great example of the English language either, buddy.
Hi pot, my name is kettle.
- aookay, on 07/05/2008, -0/+0Your sentence wasn't a great example of the English language either, buddy.
- bonds, on 07/05/2008, -2/+8***** American Idol
- skyz, on 07/05/2008, -1/+6you may be right that we get the leader we deserve HOWEVER unfortunately the leader we get impacts a planet of people who just might deserve better
- stevensj2, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1I completely agree, though I have one question:
By "deserving better" do you mean a better president, or better voters?
The two aren't independent.
- stevensj2, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1I completely agree, though I have one question:
- OC73, on 07/03/2008, -57/+52Flip-flop
- keviniskool, on 07/05/2008, -3/+6I bet he makes great pancakes with all the flip-flopping he's been doing recently.
- dafragsta, on 07/05/2008, -2/+9Those words scare people who are married to their party, but you are right. He did. Just because you admire his speaking prowess and how he talked about the things you liked in the primaries doesn't mean dick now. The general election is here, and Barack Obama is just another politician. He's a Bilderberger as of that fateful night when he was having a supposed "secret meeting" with Hillary, just like the member of his VP team that resigned right after that meeting.
- sovereign3, on 07/05/2008, -3/+2What's the deal with the idea of "flip-flopping?" Shouldn't it be perfectly acceptable for a politician to change their mind after sound reasoning and a change of facts? You want a president who doesn't flip-flop? Vote for George Bush.
- Akronos, on 07/05/2008, -2/+2What happened to principles that stand the test of time? The ones that come from the constitution, the declaration of independence, and the advice of the founding fathers.
Politicians shouldn't be changing their mind because they shouldn't be wrong in the first place. If they are, then I wonder what kind of president they would make. For example, even though many democratic politicians, such as Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, etc. have "regretted" their vote to authorize the force on Iraq, their vote was a huge mistake and has cost millions of lives in total, among other repercussions. Their flip flop is now meaningless, and the damage is done. Someone like Kucinich or Paul, who've been consistent in their positions and have principle and integrity would make far better presidents than a flip flopper.
George Bush by the way changed his stance on many issues. - sovereign3, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2What if their initial position was wrong? Should they stick by it? What if Bush reversed his position on Iran? Is he wrong?
- Kangalanatolian, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1If their initial position was to follow the constitution, they would not be wrong.
- Akronos, on 07/05/2008, -2/+2What happened to principles that stand the test of time? The ones that come from the constitution, the declaration of independence, and the advice of the founding fathers.
- joe39275, on 07/05/2008, -1/+2More like a promise broken.
- psiege, on 07/03/2008, -39/+29McCain said it best, "Change is great, as long as it's the right kind of change."
Looks like Obama couldn't agree more. What are the Obamabots to do, oh my. - fleischner, on 07/03/2008, -41/+30Doesn't matter at all to the Believers. Once you go 'bama, you never go back.
- superkendall, on 07/03/2008, -40/+33So why not vote for McCain, since Obama is just going to end up taking the same position on every issue. At least McCain was honest enough to tell you where he really was at the start, unlike Obama rocketing to victory in the primaries and then ejecting his spent left base to continue onward...
McCain has not pandered this way to the right, at least not in the same order of magnitude (think of anything to compare with just the FISA switchup from Obama, much less this new Iraq twist).- TheInformer, on 07/05/2008, -4/+4Question:
Can you name me a major issue in which Obama has broken ranks with the left?- BECoole, on 07/05/2008, -1/+5Do you remember what the article you are commenting on was about?
- Vocifer, on 07/05/2008, -5/+5How about voting for neither?
- AwakeningAZ, on 07/05/2008, -5/+8McCain hasn't pandered this way to the right on something of this magnitude?
How about...Torture and Off-shore drilling? - zombies187, on 07/05/2008, -4/+3So why not vote for Obama since he is going to have the same policies as McCain?
See how easy it is to make things up? - KennMac, on 07/05/2008, -3/+4"McCain has not pandered this way to the right"
Proof that you have no idea what you're talking about. Even conservatives will admit that McCain was outright moderate, almost on the left, before his 2008 campaign. Even Ann Coulter wants nothing to do with him.
- TheInformer, on 07/05/2008, -4/+4Question:
- fleischner, on 07/03/2008, -48/+43And don't forget, BHO waited until 5pm on a holiday afternoon to let this one fly. Yeah, he was really sure about his position.
- SheilaNoya, on 07/04/2008, -19/+14You mean he appeared on TV after the fake press reports and he debunked them by saying it was a lie from the McCain camp.
Obama made it perfectly clear today that his position on Iraq has NOT changed. This was spin from a fake news release issued by Republicans.- JointVenture, on 07/04/2008, -9/+9Nice try *****.
- aookay, on 07/05/2008, -2/+0Thank you for engaging in a rational discussion, *****.
- SheilaNoya, on 07/04/2008, -19/+14You mean he appeared on TV after the fake press reports and he debunked them by saying it was a lie from the McCain camp.
- abran1984, on 07/03/2008, -40/+52So, will he actually go through with any of the promises he made during the primaries?
- psiege, on 07/03/2008, -20/+39Question is, will the Obamabots care if he doesn't? Will they start ranting and raving then?
Doubtful. - Xcel, on 07/05/2008, -10/+11Ron Paul would have kept his promises.
- MewTwo, on 07/05/2008, -4/+3Good one... if you were being sarcastic
- aookay, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1yeah, totally. Too bad there is no way we can prove you wrong, so I guess you win! >.>
- BedPost, on 07/05/2008, -1/+2Change? Pfft...
- psiege, on 07/03/2008, -20/+39Question is, will the Obamabots care if he doesn't? Will they start ranting and raving then?
- edyang, on 07/03/2008, -50/+45What's that sound?
Sounds like another flip flop to me.
In a year when everyone said the Democrats could not lose, looks like they're finding new ways to do just that.- freudianslipper, on 07/04/2008, -12/+11Please read the article. Where is the flip flopping? He's always said he would listen to the commanders in Iraq regarding his decisions to pull troops out.
This is from the article:
"At the second meeting with reporters, Obama said: "We're going to try this again. Apparently I wasn't clear enough this morning on my position with respect to the war in Iraq. ... I have said throughout this campaign that ... I would bring our troops home at a pace of one to two brigades per month and at that pace we would have our combat troops out in 16 months. That position has not changed. I have not equivocated on that position. I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position."
This is also from the article:
"What I said this morning and what I will repeat because it's consistent with what I've said over the last two years is that in putting this plan together, I will always listen to the advice of commanders on the ground, but that ultimately, I'm the person who is making the strategic decisions."
If you don't like Obama, that's fine. But please inform yourself correctly. There is no "flip flopping" going on here.
- freudianslipper, on 07/04/2008, -12/+11Please read the article. Where is the flip flopping? He's always said he would listen to the commanders in Iraq regarding his decisions to pull troops out.
- bluto36, on 07/03/2008, -57/+57obama could come out and repeat a bush speech verbatim, including gaffs and mispronunciations and the Obamatrons would just drool and say he touched their souls!
- Hortnon, on 07/03/2008, -22/+6...seriously? ...
- aookay, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1wow, you sound like hillary clinton now.
Do you really want to be THAT guy?
- voxlisa999, on 07/03/2008, -34/+15THIS ARTICLE IS A TOTAL LIE. HE HELD A PRESS CONFERENCE AT 5PM AND SAID WE ARE LEAVING IRAQ- PERIOD. FULL STOP.
- psiege, on 07/03/2008, -10/+22Yes, that was after his original speech. The second speech was to clarify the sewage that spewed from his lying mouth.
This guy is no different than a giant sail, following the political wind and whatever direction it may blow.
So, he states that he'll listen to the generals and commanders on the ground huh. What if they say, we can't pull out? Will he listen then? Or, will he only listen as long as it's what he wants to hear?
Unplug the brain cord Obama has inserted, take off caps lock, and wake up man. - JointVenture, on 07/04/2008, -6/+5Yeah, I think his campaign bitch said by 2016.
- jbenson2, on 07/05/2008, -3/+6The O-man is having a lot of trouble explaining his position on a lot of important topics. His follow up press conference a few minutes after the first is a perfect example of his difficulty.
- psiege, on 07/03/2008, -10/+22Yes, that was after his original speech. The second speech was to clarify the sewage that spewed from his lying mouth.
- radiofrequency, on 07/03/2008, -27/+18This was expected because even the suggestion of moving out of Iraq will destabilize the region, encourage terrorists to attack America again, and send oil prices through the roof. I think as Obama hears more from the American people he'll start to understand how his policy ideas are whacked out and completely incompatible with reality. What people really want is smaller government, lower taxes, cheaper energy. Americans are perfectly accepting of attempts to solve the energy problem and get more independence from foreign oil, and certainly nobody wants to be at war. But mostly, I think they want the government to shut up and do its job which is to protect the nation from intruders and ensure commodities are available for business and industry to grow.
Sometimes the government needs to play hardball in the international arena to get the job done.- elleigh2, on 07/03/2008, -9/+9That's just it,,a liberal run gov't doesn't know how to get tough when it comes to national security. They have proven that over and over time and again that they are a bunch of pussies!
- ciaran036, on 07/04/2008, -6/+6It won't destabilize the region, it will instantly reduce violence. With US soldiers out of the way, only sectarian violence will prevail. The Iraqi's can manage this themselves. They've got their own soldiers.
- foontala, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4I think many Americans have obtained a warped sense of cause and effect concerning the consequences of our pulling out of Iraq (e.g. it "will destabilize the region, encourage terrorists to attack America again").
The people over there hate us because we are there. period.
Over 85 percent want us out, now. If they want us out, why should we hypocritically and oxymoronically stay to "force freedom?"
Al Qaeda's only recruiting tool is our intervention and foreign bases. - Akronos, on 07/05/2008, -1/+3HAHAHA at "send oil prices through the roof".
What the hell? You idiots have been saying this all along, that withdrawal would mean high oil prices. And yet, even though we still have a large troop presence in Iraq, oil has hit record high prices. If anything, this is proof your interventionist policy absolutely does not work.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080703/bs_afp/commod ...
- Stevanoski, on 07/03/2008, -43/+58Let's see according to the Left McCain flip flops but Obama "grows" his opinions? Hmmmm, something seems wrong here.
- VCubed, on 07/04/2008, -13/+13There's a tiny difference between McCain changing from anti-oil-drilling off the coasts to pro-oil drilling, from pro-immigration reform to anti-immigration reform, from pro campaign finance reform to breaking the law while using public campaign financing, from no tax breaks during war to bigger tax breaks for the rich and add another war - and Obama sticking with his principles and adjusting how he'll meet the same, not changed goals, according to realities on the ground.
- PolishLogic, on 07/05/2008, -7/+8The goal was immediate removal of the troops and ending the war, now morphing to something that will occur over 16 months.
Next it will be 2 years, then sometime during his second term (if people are that foolish).
Another bum deal issued after he's claimed the nomination, that goes against what he said in trying to get that nomination. - TheInformer, on 07/05/2008, -2/+7You forgot about the several times he pledged to accept public financing for his candidacy. Once he found out he could make more through the private sector, he backed away fast and backed away from what he had said.
Now, if he had said "I'm going to forgo public financing because of so much private support", that would have been ok. But, he gave all sorts of reasons that danced around the subject and tried to place blame falsely. That's deceptive. - babar77, on 07/05/2008, -3/+3First, HIS PLAN HAS ALWAYS BEEN 16 MONTHS, what are you a ***** moron? Did you just tune in? His "now" reference was to start the phased withdrawal NOW so that WE'D BE OUT IN 16 MONTHS.
Regarding his supposed "flip flop" on public finance - he made that pledge before he realized he would succeed in building such a large alternative public financing from small donors. He's still true to his principles of being funded by small people.
McCain on the other hand has sold out every single one of his principles. You tell me what the man stands for now? I sure as hell can't tell. - gjunkie, on 07/05/2008, -2/+3What about McCain's reversal on Bush's tax cuts policy, or drilling in the continental shelf? The man doesn't even know the difference between Sunni and Shia. He's admitted to not knowing anything about the economy and then lied saying he never said anything like that"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bogh_sp5SE0
Please... if you're gonna bash Obama, at least give us a better option. - PolishLogic, on 07/05/2008, -2/+3@gjunkie
"Please... if you're gonna bash Obama, at least give us a better option."
What does this even mean? So because there isn't a "perfect" candidate out there, we're not allowed to bash the glaring shortcomings of the other candidates?
I have never commented that McCain was perfect. However, there are quite a few people on this site that see Obama as such. Even now that he's turning his back on some of the very stances that made up much of that appeal to his followers.
McCain has been mediocre from the start, Obama was held up as a saint from the start. Even though he's coming down to a level of McCain, he's still given saint status. That doesn't make sense at all.
All these policy reversals he's done in the last month or so, and people are still singing praises about who and what he is. Regardless of the fact that who and what he is has been moving quickly away from the thing that drew people to him in the first place.
That's some scary *****. I can only wonder what people will allow him to do once he's in office. I clearly remember what the people allowed Bush to do in the wake of 9/11 (when his popularity rating was one of the highest ever).
- PolishLogic, on 07/05/2008, -7/+8The goal was immediate removal of the troops and ending the war, now morphing to something that will occur over 16 months.
- jbetancourt, on 07/05/2008, -3/+3So, let's see, something better is for a candidate to espouse some platform and then inflexibly follow said platform come hell or highwater. Then if, this platform still allows them to win the election, fanatically follow such as platform no matter what. Seems to me, the prudent coarse, and what is actually happening is that each candidate has a goal and will approach that goal within the parties "ideology".
Thus, both McCain and Obama want that snot nosed poor kid to get a fair decent education, but each wants to get there in a certain way (trickle down or up, level of gov involvement, etc). Given that, each candidate is just grandstanding and trying to win hearts and mind of the electorate. Obviously, in office, things will change. bottom line, go behind the babble, find the real person. - mnmacgeek, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Honestly? I don't care if people change their minds, just tell me WHY. Be transparent about why you believe what you believe. I'm just sick of hearing the same old lines over and over again, "lower taxes", "more money for education",.... So? I don't think anyone is anti-education. What are we going to sacrifice if you cut taxes? What are you going to cut if we improve our education system? Where's the transparency?
- VCubed, on 07/04/2008, -13/+13There's a tiny difference between McCain changing from anti-oil-drilling off the coasts to pro-oil drilling, from pro-immigration reform to anti-immigration reform, from pro campaign finance reform to breaking the law while using public campaign financing, from no tax breaks during war to bigger tax breaks for the rich and add another war - and Obama sticking with his principles and adjusting how he'll meet the same, not changed goals, according to realities on the ground.
- JointVenture, on 07/03/2008, -41/+58So him telling you one thing when running the primary and then another now that he has the nomination doesnt piss you off? Its only been a few weeks since he was saying that ***** to win the primary.
You been had!- VCubed, on 07/04/2008, -5/+5There's a tiny difference between McCain changing from anti-oil-drilling off the coasts to pro-oil drilling, from pro-immigration reform to anti-immigration reform, from pro campaign finance reform to breaking the law while using public campaign financing, from no tax breaks during war to bigger tax breaks for the rich and add another war - and Obama sticking with his principles and adjusting how he'll meet the same, not changed goals, according to realities on the ground.
- kaelyiesta, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3Justifying wrong actions by comparing them to another worse action is not a valid argument.
- zspade, on 07/05/2008, -5/+3He's not president yet, and he hasn't been voted for yet. Personally I think this is a great decision in light of recent developments.
We've already has a president who stuck to his guns unwaveringly for the last 8 years, and we can all see what good that did him. Someone who is willing to admit their wrong, and change their positions based on data will be much more flexible. The reason we persecute McCain is that everything he says he goes back and forth on. It's not just one thing here or there, it's this total alignment with Bush which he has never had before. It makes him come off as a complete phony.
Now I don't have any illusions about Barack being JFK or the messiah, I just honestly believe he would be a better choice than McCain right now. Of course I also believe if Bob Barr really means what he says, then he would be the best choice of all.
Fat chance of that though.
- VCubed, on 07/04/2008, -5/+5There's a tiny difference between McCain changing from anti-oil-drilling off the coasts to pro-oil drilling, from pro-immigration reform to anti-immigration reform, from pro campaign finance reform to breaking the law while using public campaign financing, from no tax breaks during war to bigger tax breaks for the rich and add another war - and Obama sticking with his principles and adjusting how he'll meet the same, not changed goals, according to realities on the ground.
- HanFastolfe, on 07/03/2008, -26/+30I'm wondering how Hillary would have done against the "new and changed" Obama? But, what I'm really interested in seeing is how Keith Olbermann handles, this.
- woodrow8292, on 07/04/2008, -8/+30Just go on a rant about Bush for 15-20 mins and blame it all on him.
- riseabove, on 07/05/2008, -3/+1read the article, idiot
- johnnyfistfight, on 07/03/2008, -43/+36Mr. Flip Flop has done it again. This guy is a total and complete moron and his minions are speechless regarding his decision.
- PosedMagnet, on 07/05/2008, -5/+8Did you even read the ***** article, you idiot?
- arvvvs, on 07/05/2008, -4/+2And MCcain's teh BIGGER flip-flopper you idiot. If you pay attention they all flip flop. Besides he is still gonna withdraw
- pocee, on 07/03/2008, -15/+10This article is incorrect. In the press conference and said “we are leaving Iraq. No military solution in Iraq. No change in position. The President makes the “Policy” call- not the Generals.
- psiege, on 07/04/2008, -9/+12It depends if you're referencing conference one or two. He's a hypocrite, no other way around it.
This is no different than his "series" of responses regarding Wright. His tune changes 180 degrees with each speech, and depending on which direction the political wind is blowing at the time. - JointVenture, on 07/04/2008, -3/+3Ummmmmmm, he said he was going over to Iraq to listen and base his decision on what the GENERALS say.
Nice try Sparky, you cant spin this.
That's why there's no Obamabots in this thread, they are hiding.
- psiege, on 07/04/2008, -9/+12It depends if you're referencing conference one or two. He's a hypocrite, no other way around it.
- DerangedPenguin, on 07/04/2008, -16/+9Hey as a Senator he can negotiate a surrender to be affective as soon as he is in office. Oh wait Legislative branch can not negotiate treaties and it would be criminal action.
- onetimer, on 07/04/2008, -24/+132I'm not an Obama supporter, but the implication of this headline and description is contradicted in the very same article it links to.
Further down the page:
"Obama later said at a second news conference he still intends to stick to the timeline.
At the second meeting with reporters, Obama said: "We're going to try this again. Apparently I wasn't clear enough this morning on my position with respect to the war in Iraq. ... I have said throughout this campaign that ... I would bring our troops home at a pace of one to two brigades per month and at that pace we would have our combat troops out in 16 months. That position has not changed. I have not equivocated on that position. I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position. "
Can digg go ONE day without a sensationalist article?- dha07030, on 07/05/2008, -9/+2Great point but people seem pissed because he threw in this clause, just guessing here NOT an Obama supporter.
- eddiecamaro, on 07/05/2008, -1/+22I think people arent reading through the whole article.
- Bob042, on 07/05/2008, -1/+14This is Digg, a good portion of the commenters are just discussing the title/description, and haven't even clicked the article link.
- riseabove, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2of course they arent, but mccain spammers need to earn their brownie points somehow
- Falldog, on 07/05/2008, -2/+15All of the anti-Obama supporters are bored.
- junkwheel, on 07/05/2008, -0/+6No. Digg will slowly turn into a user generated tabloid.
- aookay, on 07/05/2008, -0/+0Well said sir.
- Judasmac, on 07/04/2008, -25/+18Why are people here trying to discredit this article by citing Obama's second news conference against the quotes (yes, quotes) in the piece? Isn't it clear that Obama is trying to back off of the artificial timeline, while denying that he's changed his position? So Axelrod says things like: "And he's always said that he's never said ..." Clearly his people feel the heat of the charge that he's flipping, and by the second new conference he felt the need to repeat the pledge he had earlier backed off of. Simple enough, no?
- knumbknuts, on 07/04/2008, -20/+7Obama's new Iraq plan:
You go to the North!
You go to the South!
I'm going to stay here and walk in circles.
("Do you care if it falls?")
("If what falls")
("The Empire?")
("Ahh ***** the Empire") - yellowsnowcone, on 07/04/2008, -14/+6Like no one saw this coming? If you read Obama's statements carefully, he's basically painted himself into a corner from which he can't get out.
1. He says the war has been a costly mistake and we should end it ASAP. It's cost too many American lives. To that end, he will pull out troops in 16 months.
2. But he will leave some troops on the ground to train Iraqi soliders and prevent the terrorists from gaining a foothold.
3. In order for the pull out to happen in 16 months, Iraq has to be STABLE. He says we could lose more US troops if we pull out too quickly, so the pull out might take longer while we try to stablize Iraq before the pull out.
QUESTION: What is your definition of STABLE? Things are unstable now. Troops are getting killed. Iraqis are getting killed. Terrorists are still a threat.
But if you STABLIZE things ... ie reverse all those things ... so that you can have a troop pull out, isn't that the same thing as WINNING in Iraq??
So Obama's policy = Win the Iraq War, then pull out the troops.- yellowsnowcone, on 07/04/2008, -3/+2haha ... people digg me down because they know I am talking the truth ... Obama is PRO WAR. He wants to withdraw, but he wants to see US VICTORY first. That is his stance. He is no different from McCain!
- tcbishop12, on 07/04/2008, -15/+49Obama renewed his promise to get out of Iraq in 16 months. My God. What a bunch of real cretins. Yes, I realize, most of you will have to look that word up. But by all means, don't let me try to confuse your precious opinions with the actual facts. RTFA!
- Pssdoff, on 07/04/2008, -14/+3"Redeployed troops" means moving troops from Iraq, into Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Africa for a different occupation.
This does not mean leaving Iraq and coming home to the United States.
If you withdraw a prisoner from his cell, and redeploy him to the cell next door, does this make him free?- nfury8ing, on 07/05/2008, -5/+1So, we should pay our soldiers to do nothing?
This is their JOB. They signed up for it; and they knew what the ramifications of it were. Redeployment is simply removing them from being useless in Iraq to being useful somewhere else in the world. You know... actually earning the signing bonus/etc.
- nfury8ing, on 07/05/2008, -5/+1So, we should pay our soldiers to do nothing?
- Pssdoff, on 07/04/2008, -14/+3"Redeployed troops" means moving troops from Iraq, into Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Africa for a different occupation.
- Kangalanatolian, on 07/04/2008, -17/+5Can I just say 4 words: Chuck Baldwin: CONSTITUTION PARTY (He is NO theocrat- ask Ron Paul)
- MikeFallopian, on 07/05/2008, -0/+5"God, Family, and the Republic."
- Chuck Baldwin campaign slogan
Nope, no theocrat here folks. - onetimer, on 07/05/2008, -0/+4LOL, as if Ron Paul was the authority on NON-theocrats...
"Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view...The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity."
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion."
"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."
Not only are the last two statements LIES (in regards to his description of the founding fathers and the constitution), but a complete perversion of what the likes of Jefferson imagined. Hell you don't have to look to far to see his "sanctity of life" act which by providing rights to ZYGOTES, would serve as a de-facto nationwide abortion (and morning after pill) ban.
He's as religious as they come.- Kangalanatolian, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1So you would deny him his religion? Perhaps he has a point, then. In any case he is mostly right. It was set up to keep a religion from dominating the state.
His position is to deal with this life issue at the state level, just like Ron Paul.
What matters here is the rights of some to force their religion onto others. Those rights should not exist.
I have never heard a fetus referred to as a Zygote before. In any case- this should be a state issue. The federal government should be for DEFENSE, not EMPIRE BUILDING, or propaganda coordinating, or very much of anything else.
- Kangalanatolian, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1So you would deny him his religion? Perhaps he has a point, then. In any case he is mostly right. It was set up to keep a religion from dominating the state.
- MikeFallopian, on 07/05/2008, -0/+5"God, Family, and the Republic."
- whodat51773, on 07/04/2008, -9/+2Obama leading by minority opinion.
- oldhick, on 07/04/2008, -11/+5Welcome to the two party system where NOTHING changes. Its just different packaging on the same old tired machine...
- userperson, on 07/05/2008, -3/+1Welcome implies an arrival.
Though poetic license IS fun.
"When I first met blah blah he said welcome to Minnesota. I thought this was strange because up to that point I'd lived my whole life in Minnesota."
- userperson, on 07/05/2008, -3/+1Welcome implies an arrival.
- Coolkid11, on 07/04/2008, -18/+9You guys say that McCain flip-flops, well what do you ***** call this? Oh right, a flip-flop. So before you go insulting McCain, realize that your own candidate ***** flip-flops all the ***** time.
- AchaIemoipas, on 07/04/2008, -5/+4I'm pretty sure people don't like McCain because he wants to wage war with everybody, and he's insane. Not because of flip-flopping.
- wreckosaurus, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1both really
- userperson, on 07/05/2008, -1/+1... but Obama really WANTS to stop waging war, but that doesn't necessarily mean he will, so big difference there.
Vote Obama ... he feels about about war.
- lordmike, on 07/05/2008, -0/+5Except that he hasn't flip flopped at all... look at the other comments...
- AchaIemoipas, on 07/04/2008, -5/+4I'm pretty sure people don't like McCain because he wants to wage war with everybody, and he's insane. Not because of flip-flopping.
- swrostmore, on 07/04/2008, -16/+15January 31, 2007- "the withdrawal COULD BE TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED if the Iraqi government meets a series of benchmarks laid out by the Bush administration."
Aug. 19 2007 - Obama "agreed in a debate this morning that pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq can't be accomplished in just a few months and that any withdrawal MUST BE BALANCED BY SECURITY CONCERNS."
Sept. 10 2007 -"According to Obama's bill, redeployment of U.S. forces is "SUBJECT TO THE EXCEPTIONS for retention of forces"
Spet. 13 2007- "Several of his Democratic rivals, though, said yesterday that Obama was taking a step backward by NOT IMPOSING A SPECIFIC DEADLINE for withdrawal."- VCubed, on 07/04/2008, -3/+7What does that list of out-of-context quotes prove?
- swrostmore, on 07/04/2008, -6/+4It proves that this article is inaccurate and Obama's Iraq policy has been 100% consistent.
- swrostmore, on 07/04/2008, -4/+4These are quotes from various news orgs about Obama's Iraq policy over the past year. It proves that this article is inaccurate and Obama's Iraq policy has been 100% consistent. Saying he would "refine" his policy based on military advice, and that he's not "wedded to a specific timeline" is nothing new, its what he's always said. It's what the legislation he proposed in the Senate mandated, and it is what he was attacked by Clinton in the Democratic debates for.
- VCubed, on 07/04/2008, -3/+7What does that list of out-of-context quotes prove?
- AchaIemoipas, on 07/04/2008, -13/+5I ***** knew it.
Win the primaries, take a dive, McCain is president.
Watch him discredit himself over and over until the elections. You guys got screwed again. - goldy1064, on 07/04/2008, -11/+18Just because you guys don't want to listen to reality, doesn't mean he's changed his stance. This is probably why most of you also "know" that Bush is a good President (sic).
This might help spell things out for you that the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity don't want you to know.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/1608 ...- jbetancourt, on 07/05/2008, -1/+2Conservative radio modus operendi: Use either/or logic, belittle, ignore, and mis-categorize fuzzy information.
- jbetancourt, on 07/05/2008, -1/+2Conservative radio modus operendi: Use either/or logic, belittle, ignore, and mis-categorize fuzzy information.
- swrostmore, on 07/04/2008, -22/+60How is Obama repeating for the millionth time that his withdrawal plan of 16 months is flexible, based on advice from the military, a rewrite?
OBAMA HAS CONSISTENTLY SAID HE WILL LISTEN TO COMMANDERS ON THE GROUND IN IMPLEMENTING HIS POLICY
June 2008: Obama: I’ve Consistently Said That I Will Consult With Military Commanders On The Ground And Be Open To The Possibility Of Tactical Adjustments. Obama said, “I've also consistently said that I will consult with military commanders on the ground and that we will always be open to the possibility of tactical adjustments. The important thing is to send a clear signal to the Iraqi people and most importantly to the Iraqi leadership that the U.S. occupation in Iraq is finite, it is gonna be coming to a foreseeable end.” [MSNBC, 6/16/08]
March 2008: Obama Said He Would Give Senior Military Leaders Opinions Great Weight In Implementing His Iraq Plan But As Commander In Chief Would Make His Own Assessment Of The Situation. Obama was asked “what weight will you give to the counsel of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command] commander, the combatant commander on the ground in Iraq and current intelligence chiefs on the ground in Iraq regarding an immediate phased withdrawal?” Obama said, “I will give their counsel great weight. But, as commander in chief, it is my responsibility to make my own assessment of the situation. We must send a clear signal to the Iraqi political leadership that we are leaving Iraq on a timeline. Doing so will put pressure on those leaders to begin to resolve the political impasse at the heart of this civil war. But I also want to be clear about another thing. I am worried our Army is overstretched and that we have asked an awful lot from our military families. Many in our senior military leadership are worried about a plan that will keep 130,000 troops on the ground in Iraq for the foreseeable future. So, as commander in chief, I will also have to take into consideration the counsel of other senior military leaders who may be concerned that Iraq is undercutting our ability to confront other security challenges.” [Washington Post, 3/2/08]
March 2008: Obama Said The Size Of The Residual Force Will Depend On Consultation With Military Commanders And “Will Depend On The Circumstances On The Ground.” Obama said, “The precise size of the residual force will depend on consultations with our military commanders and will depend on the circumstances on the ground, including the willingness of the Iraqi government to move toward political accommodation. But let me be clear on one thing: I will end this war, and there will be far fewer Americans in Iraq conducting a much more limited set of missions that include counterterrorism and protection of our embassy and U.S. civilians.” [Washington Post, 3/2/08]
November 2007: Obama Said He Would Leave Residual Troops In Iraq Based On The Levels Of Violence, “It’s Not My Job To Specify Troop Levels.” Obama said, “If we see a serious effort by the Iraqi leadership to arrive at an agreement and an accommodation and you've seen continued reductions of violence, then you need one level of troop protection for the embassy…If things have gone to hell in a hand basket then you need another ... It's not my job to specify troop levels. My job is to tell our commanders on the ground, ‘Here's your mission. Protect our embassy, protect our diplomats and our humanitarian workers in the area and make sure al Qaeda in Iraq, or other terrorist organizations inside of Iraq are not re-establishing bases there.” [Fosters, 11/28/07]
November 2007: Obama Said U.S. Has To Make Sure “We Are Not Just Willy-Nilly Removing Troops” And That It May “Take A Little Bit Longer” In Some Areas Where There Is Less Stability. “According to all the reports, we should have been well along our way in getting the Iraqi security forces to be more functional. We then have another 16 months after that to adjust the withdrawal and make sure that we are withdrawing from those areas, based on advice from the military officers in the field, those places where we are secured, made progress and we’re not just willy-nilly removing troops, but we’re making a determination – in this region we see some stability. We’ve had cooperation from local tribal leaders and local officials, so we can afford to remove troops here. Here, we’ve still got problems, it’s going to take a little bit longer. Maybe those are the last areas to pull out.” [New York Times, 11/1/07]
November 2007: Obama: “If The Commanders Tell Me They Need X, Y And Z, In Order To Accomplish The Very Narrow Mission That I’ve Laid Out, Than I Will Take That Into Consideration.” “You raise a series of legitimate questions. As commander in chief, I’m not going to leave trainers unprotected. In our counterterrorism efforts, I’m not going to have a situation where our efforts can’t be successful. We will structure those forces so they can be successful. We would still have human intelligence capabilities on the ground. Some of them would be civilian, as opposed to military, some would be operating out of our bases as well as our signal intelligence…But listen, I am not going to set up our troops for failure and I’m going to do something half-baked. If the commanders tell me that they need X, Y and Z, in order to accomplish the very narrow mission that I’ve laid out, than I will take that into consideration.” [New York Times, 11/1/07]
November 2007: Obama: “Even Something As Simple As Protecting Our Embassy Is Going To Dependent On What Is The Security In Baghdad…If There Is Some Sense Of Security, Then That Means One Level Of Force. If You Continue To Have Significant Sectarian Conflict, That Means Another.” “I have not ascribed particular numbers to that and I won’t for precisely the reason I was just talking to Michael about. I want to talk to military folks on the ground, No. 1. No. 2, a lot of it depends on what’s happened on the political front and the diplomatic front. Even something as simple as protecting our embassy is going to be dependent on what is the security environment in Baghdad. If there is some sense of security, then that means one level of force. If you continue to have significant sectarian conflict, that means another, but this is an area where Senator Clinton and I do have a significant contrast.” [New York Times, 11/1/07]- memphisphoenix, on 07/05/2008, -1/+4Would a few so called reporters do their homework so thoroughly! Thanks for pulling it all together. I've saved it all for future reference.
- skyz, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1you should save it for future reference
otherwise it would be really easy to become really confused as to what obama said when and about what
- skyz, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1you should save it for future reference
- skyz, on 07/05/2008, -2/+3flexible that's good
i'm sure obama is going to be more and more flexible as he changes his positions more and more - junkwheel, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2Digg politics = tabloid sensationalism.
- memphisphoenix, on 07/05/2008, -1/+4Would a few so called reporters do their homework so thoroughly! Thanks for pulling it all together. I've saved it all for future reference.
- zennie62, on 07/04/2008, -17/+10BURY THIS!!
- benintn, on 07/04/2008, -15/+10Obama held another press conference yesterday afternoon (7/3) to explain where he stands on Iraq:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3TVL6LSJVE
---
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/no ...
Here's the quote that Charles Gibson referenced in the April 22 debate:
On a conference call with reporters earlier Friday Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said Obama has been "crystal clear with the American people that if and when he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in - as he said, the time frame would be about 16 months at the most where you withdraw troops. There should be no confusion about that with absolute clarity."
Here's how Gibson phrased it:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/07/obama ...
Charles Gibson: And, Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, "When he is" -- this is talking about you -- "When he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. There should be no confusion about that."
So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?
---
So, did Gibson get the quote right?
No.
Plouffe said, "the time frame would be about 16 months at the most where you withdraw troops. There should be no confusion about that with absolute clarity." How do they get the 16-month number? The plan is to withdraw 1-2 brigades per month. That's how.
---
And Obama's response was to Gibson on 4/22 at the debate was, "Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And, unfortunately, we have had a bad mission set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer. Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics, once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately, in an orderly fashion, out of Iraq, and we are going to have our combat troops out. We will not have permanent bases there. Once I have provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. But, ultimately, the buck stops with me as the commander-
