While I may agree with you that McCain is a better choice than Obama, I do not agree with this post. Having your opinion on a subject like Iraq and then going over there to get complete information is a sign of leadership. To go over there saying that your plan is set in stone and is not subject to any revision whatsoever is naivete.
Staying the course for 16 months seems reasonable, at least then there's a light in the tunnel. Whereas staying the course under Bush was being suggested as a Germany/South Korea policy, with no end in sight. There is a difference.
So Obama is saying he is willing to change his mind if he finds out that he's wrong? Wow - what a concept. To Republicans, that's flip-flopping? To everyone else, not doing that is called the miserable stubborn 8 years of George Bush that drove America to perhaps the precipice of her dominance. This is about practical dynamic thinking versus stubborn sink with the ship mentality. Many here were willing to let captain Bush sink America because they rather stay loyal to their party than change course and avoid the massive iceberg. Thank goodness there is a candidate that's willing to change course as needed.
ah, now I understand. [rquoter]A Clarification A Message to American Voters By Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) My Fellow Americans: You may have read recent news reports that suggest I have modified my position regarding the redeployment of American military personnel in Iraq. Unfortunately, these reports have been the source of much confusion and anxiety among the millions of voters who have supported my campaign, and I would like to take this opportunity to address their concerns. Let me be crystal clear: if elected president, my first act will be to call for the immediate withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq. I have always been consistent and forthright in this position, and I want to reassure my supporters that my recent statement backtracking from it was just some bull**** my staff came up with to tack to the center for the general election. To win this election, it will be critical to appeal to the dwindling but stubborn group of idiots who cling to fantasies of American "victory" in this tragic disaster. It's an unfortunate part of the complicated game of presidential politics, but let's face it: I can't stop this war if I'm not in the White House. However, you should know by now that whatever I may say from now until November, once elected I will immediately pull the rug from these gullible pro-war rubes. Or will I? As is obvious to all but the most deluded HuffPo r****d, the surge in Iraq has produced dramatic improvements in security throughout Iraq, and the roots of a stable pro-American democracy. We have the terrorists on the run, and it would obviously be crazy for us to pull our troops from the region just as we are on the verge of victory. And it is equally obvious that everything I said in the previous paragraph was designed to placate the naive hipster moonbats I brilliantly exploited to destroy the Clintons. (You're welcome.) Now that the nomination is in the bag, I am finally free to stake out my genuine pro-victory Iraq position, and have a good laugh while the dKos morons screech like a bunch of apoplectic howler monkeys. Let's face it: at the rate I'm heading right on national security, I'll be raining nukes on Tehran by February. See what I mean? That previous paragraph should be a signal to all of you in the progressive community just how committed I am to an immediate troop withdrawal. If that's the kind of shameless bellicose jingoism it takes to temporarily fool the neocons and extra-chromosome Jebus tards, I will do it. Just as I was willing to wear the stupid flag lapel pin to satisfy their lust for empty "patriotic" symbolism. But deep in your heart you know my real goal: to end this war, and atone to the world for the 28 nightmare years of Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush fascism. Imagine the looks on the multinational plutocrats' faces when I sign the bill that nationalizes their stupid oil industry! And that there is exactly the kind of transparent commie crap that left wing lunatics eat up. It's unfortunate that I had to participate in it during the primary season, but just look at all of the comsymps and pinkos I've thrown under the bus in the last 6 weeks - Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, Samantha Power, Jim Johnson, the list goes on. And you know what? I enjoyed it. Ask yourself this: when was the last time John McCain stabbed a lefty ******* in the back? Then ask yourself: who's the real conservative in this race? In conclusion, this should make it clear to the broad moderate middle mainstream of independent American voters that I am willing to reach out to both sides of the contentious war debate, and forge a new national consensus based on unity. Together, we can build a new era of hope, and bring an end to politics of cynicism.[/rquoter]
what administration were the idiots who left iraq with not enough troops for the first 4 years of the war? this is so funny, the republicans screwed this thing up and now they supposedly get one thing right the last five months of the war and now you act like they have the moral high ground on the subject.
Anyone with any sense knew Obama's Iraq plan was nothing but vote for me because I'm against the Iraq War and I can end it.
I don't get it. He's still sticking to his 16 month timetable. What is the fuss about? Can people not read? There are free classes at the learning annex, believe me, I just learned how to read properly several months ago. It's not hard.
I find it interesting that everyone keeps claiming he's changing his position, but no one has yet to spell out exactly what has changed? In the primary debates early on, he said it was his intention to try to withdraw troops 1 or 2 brigades at a time, and be out in about 16-18 months. When asked if he could guarantee that we'd be fully out in 3 years, he said he couldn't because facts on the ground may impact the reality. That sounds a lot like what he said this week. So what, exactly, has changed in his position? It sounds more like people are demonstrating that they've not known of his position for a long time than anything else. Which is funny, given that so many of those same people were the ones b****ing about how it was the Obama supporters that didn't know anything about him.
I'm not surprised with this. Fixing Iraq rather than letting it disintegrate is a less risky move. But...politically, this might be the best time to pull out if the situation won't get better or worse anytime soon. Leaving when things are falling apart would be a big setback internationally and domestically. The consequence would be so haunting, that you'd have Nixons breaking their campaign promise in hopes of making things right again. It should be a tough decision even if our position there existed in a vacuum. But questions on whether we can even afford a long term occupation aren't even asked. The reason is because leaders are fooled/excited by the surge's numbers that neither candidate wants a full drawback.
has he said anywhere he intends toimmediately increase the budget of the .mil in order to reverse the "terrible crime" of all of our vehicles not being uparmored? sarcasm alert
It is. But the danger in reversing one's position on so many issues(which Obama keeps doing) is that it makes it difficult to know what the candidate will do if elected. This is even more of an issue with someone like Obama who doesn't exactly have much a record he's running on to begin with. Ask yourself. Do you really know what he'll do as President on Iraq, energy, gun control, FISA, Iran, etc.? He's taken multiple positions on all those issues.
bwahahaha "We will not negotiate with terrorists" "Iraq, Iran and North Korea are the axis of evil" July 6, 2008 RE: North Korea “My message was that we want to solve this problem diplomatically, and the best way to solve this problem diplomatically is for all of us to be working in concert,” Bush said. See, even the Repubs do "refinement". bwahahaha. PWNED. ..which ordinarily would be a good thing when our leaders aren't rigid but instead evaluate facts ...unless your name is GWB. Stick to your guns at all costs.
prediction - July 2010, President Obama, 25,000 American military in Iraq. 20,000 private security contractors, first oil taker leaves Basa filled by the new private pipeline from Kirkuk. Pragmatism is the great equalizer. It tends to keep you in the middle of the road.
That is a good point Obama did leave quite a bit of wiggle room regarding his Iraq policy during the debate and speeches. To a certain point though I think many of both his critics and his supporters didn't read those that carefully. As I said before I don't find this surprising and expected whether it was Obama or Clinton that there was going to be some stepping back from the rhetoric of rapid withdrawl.
This is a tangent but I still don't believe that the surge, increasing troop numbers, is responsible for the success (and I still say with some caveats) that we are recently seeing. Concurrent with the surge there was a change in strategy to negotiate with Sunni and Shiite militia groups that I think has been far more responsible for increasing security than more US troops.
