What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Realtor.com
Top 5 most ridiculous properties sold for a single dollar view!
realtor.com - Looking for a deal on your next home? What if you could pay a dollar? What if it was a MLB stadium or a university?!?!?
353 Comments
- inactive, 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? - 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. - mediaspree, on 07/03/2008, -79/+158I guess one way to bring about change is to change your positions a couple of times.
- 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] - 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!
- GhostyBoy, on 07/03/2008, -73/+105We tried to tell you.
- HappyScrappy, on 07/05/2008, -11/+34Obama later said at a second news conference he still intends to stick to the timeline'
Where does he say he isn't going to follow the plan on his website? I read the article 3 times, and I can't find it.
This is inaccurate. It's a hit job and it's not even a very good one. - naugrim, on 07/05/2008, -5/+27"Can digg go ONE day without a sensationalist article?"
In short... no. I'd limit the scope of your comment to "can it go more than an hour" :-p - woodrow8292, on 07/04/2008, -8/+30Just go on a rant about Bush for 15-20 mins and blame it all on him.
- eddiecamaro, on 07/05/2008, -1/+22I think people arent reading through the whole article.
- 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." - inactive, 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. - psiege, on 07/03/2008, -20/+39Question is, will the Obamabots care if he doesn't? Will they start ranting and raving then?
Doubtful. - superkendall, on 07/03/2008, -21/+39But the current administration is now using information from commanders on the ground, just like Obama wants to...
- Pillage, on 07/04/2008, -18/+35He's just like slick Willy, he tells something different to each crowd he talks to.
- inactive, 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! - 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 *****.
- 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.
- medfreak, on 07/04/2008, -8/+23Don't worry, you will soon get your first Neolib. Two faces for the same coin.
- 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.
- 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. - 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.
- Falldog, on 07/05/2008, -2/+15All of the anti-Obama supporters are bored.
- 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 ... - 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.
- 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, -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. - jahurt, on 07/05/2008, -5/+16Given the alternative, yes.
- 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.
- BloodWenis, on 07/05/2008, -0/+9The Clinton administration balanced the federal budget, NOT the national debt. Enormous difference.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 ...
- incabulos, on 07/05/2008, -6/+15What are you talking about? What position changed? He's still bringing the troops home. What the hell?
- 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.
- inactive, on 07/05/2008, -3/+12See, articles like these and people's responses to them are reasons why certain people should just NOT vote.
Did anyone even read the ***** article?
People simply read the headline, assume it's true, then start throwing around their armchair political ideals as if they're informed or matter. Same ***** reason why smear campaigns work on TV. People watch the commercials, assume it's true without doing their own research, then bam, within a minute their opinion on a candidate is changed.
This, my friends, is called propaganda. And don't think for a second that it can't get into "your" website that you frequent on a daily basis.
His plan has not changed from the day he mentioned he would withdrawal troops within 16 months. Reassessing the situation and saying he isn't wedded to a particular date doesn't imply he won't do it, it implies that he's evaluating the situation and is making sure it's done the right way. - inactive, 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- DavidHalko, on 07/04/2008, -2/+9We have gone from 2009 to 2010... do we have a 2011?
- 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.
- psiege, on 07/03/2008, -5/+12That's the problem, this man does NOT have an original identity. Can't you see that? He hasn't been vetted, and he's proven, without a teleprompter, his mouth spills sewage that's inconsistent and borderline lies.
- infamousjre, on 07/05/2008, -4/+11buried as inaccurate. timeline has not changed
- 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 ... - wacomwacoff, on 07/05/2008, -4/+11Buried for innacuracy. Misleading headline. No rewriting or change in plans referenced in article.
- inactive, on 07/05/2008, -0/+7Actual quote from article: "Obama said he still intends to stick to the timeline."
Digg reaction: "OMG, HE SEZ WE BE IN IRAQ FER 1,000 YERS NOW! OMG!1111eleventy" - inactive, on 07/05/2008, -6/+12Yes, we can. /s
- junkwheel, on 07/05/2008, -0/+6No. Digg will slowly turn into a user generated tabloid.
- 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...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 360 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is