home

Obama v. McCain on Iraq Policy

By TChris, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:47:02 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In a New York Times op-ed piece entitled My Plan for Iraq, Barack Obama repeats his commitment to a specific but flexible plan to withdraw most troops from Iraq over a 16 month period. John McCain, of course, has no such plan, but here's the key difference between the two candidates on Iraq policy:

I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.

(emphasis added)

< The Supreme Court: The Role Of The Senate | Bush to Lift Ban on Off-Shore Drilling >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama v. McCain on Iraq Policy | 145 comments (145 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    This tells you what his polling said, I think (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:56:14 AM EST
    Good, we needed his triangulation to stop, and with any luck it did.

    Ras and Gallup saw him dip. If he becomes a fighting Democrat, or something like that, he should do better.

    Yup - his firewall of support (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:16:44 AM EST
    is the antiwar position. He has to do whatever it takes to hold that line. Drops in the polls have their own momentum - the FISA flop cost him a lot in that regard.

    Parent
    Excellent statement. . . (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:58:10 AM EST
    and if it's still operative when he takes office things may change in Iraq.

    I'm sure Obama understands that any specific sixteen month timetable was only ever fodder for the left -- in practice he'll have to be considerably more flexible and probably in the direction of a longer-than-sixteen-months presence of some kind.

    One thing I worry about Obama is that he'll make the same mistake that Bill Clinton made -- imagining that as a newly minted Commander in Chief he'll have the ability to actually bend the Chiefs of Staff to his will.  He won't, and he'll have to be negotiating with them for a pull out.  Fortunately, I think he'll find a reasonable amount of support in the military for his position, but it won't be as universal as we probably like to think.

    I think he will have a lot of allies (none / 0) (#12)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:09:11 AM EST
    He will get support because he is trying to move our resources to Afganistan, which is different then not fighting.  He is just shifting the focus to the place that started this mess.  Hopefully he will demand and increase NGO and true nation state building with his increase in force.

    Parent
    If your read on Obama's statements (4.50 / 2) (#15)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:11:27 AM EST
    is correct, that is frightening.  

    Parent
    Now now (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:10:22 AM EST
    if it was doubletalk when Clinton said it, why isn't it doubletalk now?

    Im baffled (none / 0) (#122)
    by Jgarza on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:50:42 PM EST
    by the assertion that Clinton was accused of double talk on Iraq.  They all had the same position.  She was critisized for authorizing the war.   I don't even know where you are getting this from, but you seem to repeat it in every post.  Clinton had it worse.  Clinton was attacked for less.
    It doesn't seem at all relevent to the majority of posts you mention it in.

    Parent
    Obama's Rejection of Permanant Bases (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:20:34 AM EST
    are not that important.  Withdrawing "most troops" could still leave over 50000 troops in Iraq.  There are about 30000 troops in South Korea right now.  So even acceping what Obama just said about "Permanant Bases", under Obama, there could still be more troops in Iraq than there are in South Korea -- which makes all this talk about the lack of "Permanant Bases" supefluous (although common sense would tell you the fortress of America US embassy being built in Iraq is in reality a permanant base).

    I have a problem with this (none / 0) (#134)
    by Grace on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:46:11 PM EST
    "no permanent bases" thing.

    One reason, I've read, that we went into Iraq is because Saudi Arabia was kicking us off their land and we needed a permanent Middle East base.  It makes no sense for us to give up a base when we have a legitimate reason to be there.  

    And we do need a base in the Middle East.  (We kept airplanes, etc. at the one in Saudi Arabia.)  

    On top of all that, I understand that we've already spent billions of dollars building a base in Iraq.  What does Obama propose to do about that?  

    Parent

    Guess That's Why YOu Voted BushCo (none / 0) (#137)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:01:48 PM EST
    No wonder that's why you are sounding like our wingnut trolls..


    Parent
    Your comments do not deserve (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:25:36 AM EST
    my respect as you continue to belittle and name call. Perhaps when you are more respectful and polite, I will share my time with you. Adults have differences of opinion and may discuss in a rational, non-abusive manner.  I do respect your right to your opinion, however.

    Hahahaah (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:33:12 AM EST
    The feeling is mutual.BTW- McSame is not considered namecalling around these parts, FYI.

    Parent
    If my premise is correct that the occupation (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:45:43 AM EST
    in Iraq is a deliberate strategy by BushCo to inflate oil prices and enrich the Saudis,  the Bush family and other investors who are pulling Bush's strings, then financial interests that have coalesced to shove this war in Iraq down our throats will not be behind a similar war in Afghanistan.  The whole point of killing Saddam Hussein was to remove the maverick that bucked the system against OPEC's price manipulation strategies.  Remember, oil hit the unheard of high price of $50 a barrel in the mid 1990's, then plummeted to $10 a barrel in 1999.  Since the Iraq invasion, OPEC has steadily increased the price of oil, and those billionaires are invested in taking us for all we're worth from now until the oil runs out in Saudi Arabia.  

    Look at what happened after the American withdrawal from Vietnam in 1975.  The Khmer Rouge killed 1.5 Million of it's citizens (about a fifth of Cambodia's population) right next door, but because of the anti-war movement, we did nothing.  (Not that I think it's our job to do something, just pointing out the dynamic.)  The same will be true of Afghanistan.  There is no financial advantage to those who profit from increased oil prices while America foots the bill to keep Iraq, and it's oil production, low and stable.  

    I'm not worried that a Prez Obama has plans to implement up a similar occupation in Afghanistan.  I'm more concerned that low info voters won't see the difference between Obama and McSame's proposals for Iraq (Obama= withdrawal, McSame=bases that will require future "surges" to protect, an ongoing presence to ensure oil production is at levels that allow OPEC to continue their price fixing).  If those voters don't comprehend the difference, our economy is screwed.

    Low-info voters? (4.75 / 4) (#72)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:54:40 AM EST
    Lord, what a tired meme. Blame the voters for not understanding the Great Obama.

    Do you guys ever get tired of pushing this cr@p, considering how elitist and cowardly it makes you and your beloved Obama seem?

    If Obama cannot make his case to the voters, it. Is. His. F&cking. Fault.

    Deal with it and put down the d&mn Kool-Aid.

    And by the way? If Hillary becomes the nominee and she loses to McCain, guess whose fault it will be? Hillary's. And she would never dream of blaming the voters for her own failings.

    Parent

    I love this post :) (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by northeast73 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:57:35 AM EST


    Parent
    It's like the man who sweet-talks (1.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:18:15 PM EST
    his next conquest by telling her his wife doesn't understand him.

    Like the guy with 5 girlfriends who tells each girl that she's the only one.

    Maybe women see through Obama because they recognize his BS for what it is...


    Parent

    Nice (none / 0) (#118)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:30:59 PM EST
    Now Obama is a cad. Had not heard that one yet. From RedState?

    Parent
    He's a playah. (1.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Grace on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:51:06 PM EST
    Anne nailed it.  Maybe that's why he has such a tough time reaching older female voters.  

    Parent
    SO Much For Evenhanded Moderation (3.00 / 2) (#136)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:00:12 PM EST
    I thought calling Obama names was no longer allowed. Guess  waldenpond thinks the same as you and Ann..

    Parent
    Please show me where I called Obama a (none / 0) (#142)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 09:47:17 PM EST
    name, will you?

    And since tben's clearly in a snit - he of the stealth troll rating - maybe you can clarify for him exactly where I called Obama anything - you were the one who used the word "cad."

    I compared his recent tactics to something similar in the non-political world.  You don't have to agree with the comparison I chose, but this business of his being misunderstood all the time is wearing on my nerves.  Nothing is ever his fault: it's a staff member, or those who heard him speak didn't catch all the nuance, or it wasn't reported properly.  He speaks to each group as if he thinks no one else is paying attention.

    He's not used to being challenged - he's used to giving an explantion and having that satisfy the media.  Well, that's becoming less and less effective, isn't it, as he wiffles and waffles and flips and flops and panders and ping-pongs his way through the campaign.  And it hasn't even gotten really serious yet.

    It's embarrassing, really, these two really mediocre nominees - really just sad.

    Parent

    It Is Called Sliming (1.00 / 1) (#143)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:48:00 PM EST
    Without taking responsibility. Pretty dishonorable if you ask me.

    But you get to do everything but actually call the guy a cad....

    Nice. Kinda Rovian.

    Parent

    You have to be a very (none / 0) (#144)
    by Grace on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:59:44 AM EST
    young person not to know the difference between calling someone a name and critiquing someone.  

    If you call Hillary "Hitlery" or "Billary" or anything like that -- that's calling Hillary a name.  If you compare Hillary to Hitler, that's not calling her a name, that's a critique.  

    Calling Obama a cad is a critique.  It's not namecalling.  Calling Obama "Osama" or "Obomba" is namecalling.  

    Jeralyn has stated that calling McCain "McSame" is okay but a lot of us disagree with her.  After all, what's good for Obama should be true for all the candidates.  

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#149)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:23:54 PM EST
    Calling some a cad is certainly namecalling, and a very Rovian type of namecalling at that. It is all about innuendo based on nothing.

    Disgusting, but not surprising coming from you.

    Parent

    I have plenty of relatives and business (none / 0) (#138)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:25:49 PM EST
    associates who get their news (and political opinions) from talk radio and Faux News.  They couldn't delineate Obama's stand on Iraq compared to McCain's if you asked them today, and they generally vote based on how the commercials make them feel.  Our problems with low info voters is not a tired meme, it's a reality in this country's undereducated, uncaring electorate.  It doesn't make me elitist to recognize that they're easily swayed by our opponents like McCain.

    Obama is making his case to the voters.  Now that the primary is over, he's reaching out to the part of the electorate that often votes for Republicans.  More power to him.  His connections with evangelicals will mean fewer people will believe the right wing's disinformation campaign this fall.  Good for him, and good for us.  

    This trip to the middle east undermines the GOP claim that he doesn't know what's happening on the ground there.  Taking the trip is a very presidential thing to do, and I see some criticisms here that say he's bad for not going there recently (proves lack of experience), and he's bad for going there because it's presumptuous and he's not the official candidate yet.  Either way, people against our candidate are going to criticize him here.  

    ...it. Is. His. F&cking. Fault.  Deal with it and put down the d&mn Kool-Aid.

    A large percentage of Dems still don't support Obama, and I don't think assigning blame is the way to solve the problem.  The race was close, it was our first time our top candidates were female and African American.  People were, and are still, invested.  The question is, what next?  Spend the summer stuck in the primary race, or work on winnig the GE?

    I think the only way die-hard Hillary supporters are going to vote Democrat is if Hillary gets something out of all this, and I'm all for that given she's my Senator and she votes mostly the way I'd want her to on issues important to me.  But I don't see how striving to force the superdelegates to switch their support to Hillary helps us one bit.  If they did that, even in secret at the convention, how would our party survive?  Our first AA candidate and the party leadership that actively worked to finalize the nomination this May is going to jump ship and override the primary results for Hillary?  I don't think so.

    Given that it's just not going to happen, what else can we do instead of spending the summer deriding our candidate?


    Parent

    Ahh, but we can still keep the oil price up (4.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ineedalife on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:23:10 PM EST
    Afghanistan neighbors Iran too. And as sure as the sun comes up in the East, you can predict the claims of IEDs made with Iranian materials in Afghanistan, or some other type of bogus provocation. Every time we flex in Iran's direction, the price of oil jumps. Obama will have no qualms about doing that. It will keep both the Sheiks in the Mideast and agribusiness in the Midwest happy. High oil prices also ensure high food prices when we sacrifice food acreage for ethanol production. It's a two-fer as far as Obama is concerned.  

    Parent
    Your premise is a fallacy. (none / 0) (#104)
    by tree on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:47:58 PM EST
    Post hoc ergo propter hoc. The Iraq War was pushed by neocons, not oil interests. There is no record of oil companies pushing for war, and in fact there is a record of them being opposed to the war, because it would lead to uncertainties of supply and negotiation which all companies try to avoid like the plague. The Saudis likewise anti-war.

    World War II led to the accendance of the US as a world power. That does not mean that Hitler's secret plan was to make the US a superpower. As much as it may be comforting to assume that those who profited from the war are responsible for it, there is absolutely no serious and factual reason to absolve the Neocons of their blame and shift it onto oil interests.

    Parent

    Excellent post. (none / 0) (#111)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:53:33 PM EST
    One quibble: If we had the minutes of Cheney's secret energy meeting, you might include the oil interests in your blame scenario as well. Especially since Bush's new withdrawal plans coincide with the Iraqi government opening the doors to foreign oil companies buying their leases.

    Otherwise, your post is dead-on. The Neo-Cons were indeed the prime architects of the Iraq war.

    Parent

    No Record (none / 0) (#112)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:54:10 PM EST
    That is because Cheney won. His meetings with the big oil cos were kept secret.

    Parent
    My premise is valid (none / 0) (#119)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:37:57 PM EST
    Prior to the invasion, Saddam Hussein routinely undermined OPEC by refusing to cooperate with their illegal price manipulations.  Not for ethical reasons, I'm sure, but because he fought OPEC's leadership.  When oil prices dropped in 1999, it became clear that Hussein needed to be removed.  Now the ongoing occupation ensures his removal continues to result in oil price manipulation and profiteering.  The Iraq government has no incentive to crank up oil production as long as we are footing the bill for security and infrastructure development (I won't call it rebuilding at this point, we're well beyond that).  If Iraq was raking in huge oil revenues, America would be screaming (even more) for them to pay for their own reconstruction, long government "vacations" etc. etc.  And they'd have to share the revenues with the oppressed political minorities (Shiites and Kurds).  In fact, they hedge their bets by refusing to state how they will divide the oil profits, even though one of the benchmarks require just that.  Instead, they spend months on our bill deciding to decide later how it will be split.  

    Ending the occupation (thank you, Obama) will be the impetus for Iraq to increase production and lower world oil prices.  Benefits to us:  Reduced gas prices, an end to the senseless abuse of our military, and hopefully a chance to recover our good name in the world and our economy,

    Since my TalkLeft account is still limited, I'll answer other questions in this one comment.  Madamab, I would never say, "Shut up and vote Obama" because I believe I don't think we should squash valid opinions, which is what is being done to me here at TL.  

    With regard to your question, "What experience does he have in government compared to either McCain or Clinton?"  my response is that his life experiences position him to make decisions that forward my goals and aspirations for this country.  McCain clearly will promote policies that oppose my issues.  I don't believe Obama can say and do very much to garner votes from disaffected Hillary supporters until after the convention.  Unless Hillary denounces the PUMA movement, her supporters will continue to undermine Obama, even to the extent of criticizing him for not visiting Iraq and for visiting Iraq.

    Regarding low info voters, I'm not saying, "Blame the voters for not understanding the Great Obama."  Please don't put words in my mouth.  I've never called him the "Great" or given any indication I have some sort of hero worship going on.  However, one only has to discuss the nuances of the two candidates with people who get their news from radio talk shows and Faux News to be convinced that even enlisted military personnel are not

    Anne, regarding your statement, "Maybe women see through Obama because they recognize his BS for what it is..." I believe you are forgetting the millions of American women who voted for and support Obama.  This isn't about a "man who sweet-talks his next conquest by telling her his wife doesn't understand him," or a "guy with 5 girlfriends."  It's not even about men and women having different perceptions.  Plenty of men stood strong against the sexism in the blogs, including BTD.  What this really is about is a candidate who won half the votes from our party, and whether or not the close race in itself will derail our success in the GE.

    Parent

    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:55:17 AM EST
    McSame is on the money and says it all. Nothing stupid about it, in fact it is quite clever.

    Lets be real. (none / 0) (#85)
    by northeast73 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:10:50 PM EST
    McCAin and Bush are VERY diffenrt types of Republicans and people.

    If you were being intellectually honest, you woud admit that.

    But then Obama would have to run against MCCAIN and not Bush...

    Parent

    Disagree (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:50:35 PM EST
    McSame represents at least another 4 years of GOP lockstep plus BushCO SC picks. McSame wears the yoke of BushCo around his neck whether you are shilling for him or not.

    Parent
    Hmmm, well let's get to parsing, shall we? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Radix on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:58:22 AM EST
    Remember, he's a politician and himself has said people didn't listen carefully to what he said regarding his Iraq position. What does he mean by "most", 51%, 60%? We need him to be more specific here. Also, he said he doesn't want to do anything similar to Korea, there's a bit of wiggle room there, we'll need more on that as well. I wouldn't hail this as anything more than Obama is restating what he's already said.

    This is a very smart contrast (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:49:07 PM EST
    McCain has tried to hide from his "100 years" comment by saying that he only meant a 100-year peaceful presence like what we have in Germany, ignoring that what voters are concerned about is that we have no apparent plan to make Iraq peaceful so that we can have a peaceful presence.

    So Obama is pinning McCain down on the 100 years comment by saying, well, I don't aspire to a permanent peaceful presence either.  This is good politics - the American people are not enthused about strategic basing in Iraq - and good policy, because a primary concern of the Iraqi people is that we are simply never leaving.  Not to mention, the issue of permanent bases has been big in the netroots (the folks Obama needs to kiss and make up with) even as the MSM has mostly ignored it.  So I'm very happy he's chosen to join battle on this particular issue.

    You're probably right (none / 0) (#114)
    by dk on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:58:25 PM EST
    that the American people aren't "enthused" about permanent peaceful presence in Iraq, but you are sure that majorities are really opposed to the idea?  I honestly don't know the answer to that question.  

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#116)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:11:27 PM EST
    I don't have a poll at hand, but I'd be shocked if that were the case, considering that the overwhelming sentiment of the public is that they want this war over with.

    I'm not sure how meaningful a poll would really be, considering that the issue of permanent bases has kind of flown beneath the radar in the public consciousness up until now.  Let Obama put the issue front and center and spur an actual public debate over it.  As long as he sticks to his guns, I really like our chances to come out on top on this issue.

    Parent

    Well, the Cold War and the Korean war (none / 0) (#128)
    by dk on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:42:36 PM EST
    are over with, but we still have troops in those places.

    But whatever.  I'm not really disagreeing with you.  I just don't believe Obama really means what he says here.  He's leaving plenty of loopholes in his statements to leave some kind of wiggle room for leaving some military presence over there.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#129)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:49:53 PM EST
    If Iraq were going to be peaceful tomorrow, we could think about whether it makes sense to leave some bases there.  It probably wouldn't, because there is a local resistance to our forces quite unlike anything we faced in Korea or the Cold War nations.

    But it won't be peaceful tomorrow, of course, which is the fact that McCain kind of glossed over in his "100 years" statement.  Given that there is no real possibility that our forces will be peacefully accepted by the entirety of the Iraqi population at any time in the foreseeable future, it makes sense to reorient our long-term objectives around something that doesn't include permanent basing.

    Parent

    Well, that makes sense to me. (none / 0) (#141)
    by dk on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:46:24 PM EST
    My point is that Obama will not be reorienting his policy against a long-term presence, his recent pandering to the anti-war crowd notwithstanding.

    Parent
    What to believe.... (3.66 / 3) (#6)
    by northeast73 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:00:31 AM EST
    with Obama is the problem.

    Is this his position?  Or is this his latest "I need to say something to stop the criticism" strategy.

    That's my problem with Obama.  He has never been genuine to me, and anything he "says" with regard to Iraq or anything else really mean very little.

    I spend more time wondering "why" he states sometning, rather than assessing the merit of "what" he said.

    Given Obama recently stated (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:03:50 AM EST
    his purpose for going to Iraq is to learn, his current position, even though in a NYT op-ed, is probably subject to change.

    Parent
    To learn? (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by northeast73 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:06:38 AM EST
    That would imply he doesn't know everything and may change his mind based on new information?

    Good grief.

    Obama's withdrawal from Iraq statements have about as much merit as McCains "100 years" gaffe.

    Neither actually mean anything.

    Parent

    Never, ever, change your mind... (none / 0) (#125)
    by mrmobi on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:09:46 PM EST
    That would imply he doesn't know everything and may change his mind based on new information?

    Good grief.

    I agree totally. The one thing you don't want in a President is someone who is capable of learning. Once you decide on a course, you must never waiver, no matter how much reality intrudes. Haven't we tried this for the last eight years?

    To be clear, according to you, once you are a candidate for President, you know everything, all the time.

    Good to know.

    Parent

    Of course, you want a President (none / 0) (#145)
    by Grace on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:17:15 AM EST
    who is open to new information.  

    The problem I see with Obama is that he is incapable of making a correct decision with incomplete information.  

    In other words:  He can't make a decision unless he knows everything.  It's not always possible to know everything.

    This bothers me because, as leader of the USA, he needs to be decisive.  He cannot be a "I dunnnnno" kind of guy.  He has to make decisions.  And he has to live with his decisions.  

    Based on those last two sentences, I kinda think McCain would make a better President than Obama.  McCain can make decisions and he can stand by them.  Obama?  He's still refining them everyday.      

    Parent

    Does it strike anyone else as ironic (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by miriam on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:21:23 AM EST
    that, at this point in time, with the election a mere four months away, Obama has finally decided to learn something about Iraq?  He's running for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES for god's sake, not for president of his high school class.  What in hell is the matter with the Democratic party that it would nominate someone who, at the last minute, and after declaring all sorts of course-of-actions in foreign policy, has decided on a little trip to make up for his abysmal lack of knowledge.  This is putting the cart before the horse; the time to learn about Iraq was before he became a candidate. It also might have helped if he had held a single meeting of his oversight committee before he started pontificating on our role in Afghanistan.

    Parent
    Here we go again (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:58:37 AM EST
    with the Bad Obama, bad, bad Obama meme.  Nothing he can do will be viewed in a good light by some commenters here.

    If he doesn't go to Iraq, he's criticized for not being there in the past two years and not being up to date with the real situation on the ground.  

    If he does go, he's criticized as if he knew nothing about Iraq and needs to take a "little trip" to "learn all about Iraq."

    Your painting of Obama as knowing nothing about Iraq is a nonsense argument.  

    Parent

    Its not an "argument" (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by northeast73 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:12:52 PM EST
    It appears to be "reality".

    And sorry that you are not please to find there is not non-stop Obama worship here.

    you can find that elsewhere.  Like newsweek.  Or the Greek Lady's joint (DKOS, that is, LOL)

    But seriouisly, do YOU ever find ANYTHING to critisize about him???  ever??

    Parent

    I don't worship Obama (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:49:37 PM EST
    and most of the people that voted for him don't either.  Hillary supporters are under the assumption that Obama's supporters are all young boyz who follow him like a rock star.  It's a stereotype and it's not true.  Your comment about going elsewhere is similar to many others here who would rather stifle the discussion than solve our country's problems.  I've been told to go away, my account has been limited and my arguments are repeatedly attacked with assumptions about me rather than what I've posted.  

    Now, even at TalkLeft, people who support Obama are derided and systematically attacked and driven away.  No, I don't worship him, nor do I expect anyone to fall in line.  I always question the party line.  But arguments that say Obama is no longer pro-choice and that he's out of touch for not going to Iraq, and at the same time obviously ignorant about the war if he needs to take a "little trip to learn about it" are biased misrepresentations of what our candidate is doing.  

    I am always skeptical of politicians.  What I see in the Yes We Can movement is an engagement of our citizenry that we haven't seen since the 1960s.  Hillary supporters say it's her candidacy that brought out all the voters, but the huge groundswell of Hillary votes came AFTER the Republicans had their presumptive nominee, when the Rush Limbaugh Operation Chaos resulted in hundreds of thousands of right wing voters crossing party lines to vote for the opponent they wanted to run against: Sen Clinton.  I am very impressed by her work this spring, and I still maintain that she is not the best choice for our party to put forth as the nominee.    Please don't ask me about this because if I reply, my answers will be deemed off topic even though your question wouldn't be.

    Many Democrats evaluated Sen Clinton very carefully, and chose Obama over her.  I've posted elsewhere at TL that supporting Obama is not following a fad, it's a deliberate rejection of what the Clinton's have done and how that portends a potential future Clinton administration.  I wish her well, I hope she uses this race as a springboard to support our issues, and I want to focus on getting our candidate elected.  That focus includes discussing Obama's policies and actions, and trying to keep them in alignment with our interests.  That's what I think BTD, Jeralyn, Chris and others are trying to do here.  But others are still constantly trying to derail that goal.

    Parent

    Touche (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by daring grace on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:37:58 PM EST
    I'm with you--another Obama supporter who is not a Hillary hater or one of the boyz.

    But let's be fair. (I know it might be hard sometimes. I know you've taken a lot of heat here.)

    Some Clinton supporters are knee-jerk Obama haters just as some Obama supporters have that same reflexive hatred for Clinton.

    But there are many of us on both sides who are most anxious to clean house in November (the White House, that is, and both houses of Congress and as much as we can, the SC). That's a place where many of us can meet and agree.

    And, I know from your comments you believe this so excuse me if I seem to be preaching. Don't mean to.

    Parent

    Agreed. I don't know what to do about (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:05:44 PM EST
    the boyz on the blogs except to continue to call them on their sexist comments.  Those have lessened somewhat, but the PUMA movement keeps bringing them back to their Hillary hatred.  I wish PUMAs would go for something besides roll call at the convention because that leaves us stuck in the primary until August, and just cements the Obama-hatred in the meantime.  

    I don't hate Hillary, but their knee jerk reaction results in their attacks on me and the suppression of my opinion by limiting my account.  As my Senator, I'd like Hillary to use her newfound political clout to unseat Sen Reid.  PUMAs could help force that, and instead their focus continually returns us to the primary by deriding Obama rather than promoting Hillary.  Pitting her against the presumptive nominee in the hopes that a vote at the convention will settle everything in favor of Hillary is a sure path to derailment of our party.  What if the superdelegates were to somehow select her over Obama?  What then?  

    We need to find a solution to the party split that promotes Hillary in supporting our issues and also strengthens the Democratic brand.  We do that by looking for concurrent opportunities for Hillary, not by pitting her against Obama over and over.

    I'm almost out of comments today due to my restricted account, but I'd like to talk to you Daring Grace, or other people who would like to come up with real solutions to the divided party mess we're in.  Until my account is restored and my opinion is considered as valid as the Hillary supporters here at TalkLeft, I'm going to have to find an alternate way to discuss this with some of you folks who are looking for reasonable solutions to our dilemma.  

    Parent

    Hail, Fellow New Yorker! (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by daring grace on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:17:24 PM EST
    I hope your privileges are soon restored. I miss your participation around here.

    I just want to say you're made of sterner stuff than I in continuing to engage the boyz etc. I tend to avoid them and the PUMA discussions. Too much static for me.

    Hang in there. I remain cautiously optimistic we will have a good outcome in November.

    Parent

    You are being ridiculous! (none / 0) (#146)
    by Grace on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:30:58 AM EST
    Hillary earned those delegates and deserves a roll call count -- just like every other Democratic candidate has had before her!  If Teddy Kennedy got a roll call count, Hillary should get one too!  

    Parent
    I Actually Lean Kind of Neutral (none / 0) (#148)
    by daring grace on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:46:20 AM EST
    on the question of a roll call vote for Clinton.

    Even as an avowed Obama supporter, I'm also a supporter of fair play and Clinton definitely earned the right to something beyond a walk-on at the convention as far as I'm concerned.

    My concern is whether or not this would be used as an occasion to damage the campaign of the likely Democratic nominee, Obama and (deliberately or not) give comfort and support to McCain.

    If setting things up so that Clinton had the roll call vote would help heal the tensions, by having the party publicly acknowledge Clinton's strength of support then I'd love to see it done. Realistically, though, I see it serving more to make the divisions worse.

    Parent

    There are things to criticize (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:45:20 PM EST
    Obama for, it's the "McCain is better than all the other candidates on the ballot" bit that is patently lame. He even has a satisfactory rating lower than 50% AMONG REPUBLICANS. But these polls and articles are all steeped in "liberal bias" is that right? ;)

    Parent
    It's one of the issues that (4.66 / 3) (#39)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:27:42 AM EST
    really gets to me. HOW can they actually expect this guy to handle 2 wars?! I just cannot wrap my brain around that (along with a few other issues!).

    Parent
    Because he's Obama... (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by northeast73 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:44:14 AM EST
    ...Obama is smart.  Obama was, like, a professor.

    Obama is transcendent.  Obama is different.

    obama is the one we have been waiting for.

    the obama effect.  Obama will teach us about race.  obama will unite us.  

    obama will save our reputation.  obama will save the world.  Obama obama obama.

    Do you get it yet?

    Parent

    It is apparent obama knows nothing (3.00 / 4) (#77)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:56:27 AM EST
    about nothing and is probably shaking in his boots at the prospect of going to Iraq.  If he didn't feel forced into going, I am not sure he even would.  It is hard to believe the electorate would even consider putting their lives into the hands of this novice.  I guess the last 8 years of gwb didn't take a big enough toll.  Not a McCain supporter, but he does have more experience; though his policies need work.

    Parent
    Support for McSame comes in many packages (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:21:49 PM EST
    McCain's policies "need work."  "He has a record.  He's not a blank slate."  Hey, let's vote for him for President because he'll fix this mess Bush left us in!  Remember "NO NEW TAXES " and other promises by Republicans?  Now we're hearing that the Republicans plan to withdraw troops from Iraq.  Let's all say "whew" and vote for McCain instead of Obama, right?

    You're not a McCain supporter, but you make up things about our candidate:  Obama is "shaking in his boots" and is a "novice" and "knows nothing about nothing."  

    If Hillary was our nominee and planned a trip to Iraq, you'd be effusive with praise about her bravery, her clear and decisive move to get more information from commanders on the ground, doing all the things we'd want a presidential nominee to do.  The more you tear down Obama for doing exactly what he should do as our nominee, the more you inadvertently (or deliberately) support our Republican opponent.

    McCain will continue the failed Bush policies and continue to bankrupt our nation.  Republicans in Congress are going to be fired en mass this fall.  Many wealthy Americans are hoping they won't be stuck paying for Bush's mess like the rest of us, but guess what.  McCain and BushCo are lying.  Those tax breaks to the wealthy?  They're going to expire whether or not you vote for McCain.  

    We are going to spend the rest of our lives paying for what Bush has done.  And our kids will still be paying the bill when we're gone.  Think about that when you feel lukewarm acceptance of our Republican opponent.  It's time to suck it up, face reality and end this debacle.

    The question is, will we cut our losses now, or try to game it a little longer with McSame.  


    Parent

    Oh please. (4.50 / 2) (#105)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:48:57 PM EST
    Obama is not a novice? In what sense? What experience does he have in government compared to either McCain or Clinton?

    If PsstCmere08 says she is not supporting McCain, she isn't. Stop pretending that if you don't vote for Obama you are supporting McCain.

    Again, if Obama can't convince die-hard, yellow-dog Democrats to vote for him, there is something wrong with HIM. "Shut up and vote Obama" is not convincing in any way, shape or form.

    Parent

    With some of (1.00 / 0) (#123)
    by Jgarza on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:56:19 PM EST
    you it is clear no matter what he does you don't like him.  So why even argue.  What is the point of repeating the same attack over and over in everythread.  If you hate him don't vote for him.  

    Parent
    Irrelevant (none / 0) (#124)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:05:29 PM EST
    And a big straw man.

    What experience does he have in government compared to either McCain or Clinton?

    Once you are able to show how government experience makes for a better or worse POTUS, based on historical analysis, you may have a point.

    Parent

    Wrap your head around this: (none / 0) (#147)
    by Grace on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:39:20 AM EST
    A Fannie and Freddie bailout will cost $1 trillion +

    That's roughly twice what the entire Iraq War has cost so far.  

    If Obama gets elected, we won't see another Dem president for 20 years.  Seriously.  

    Parent

    He says what is expedient to (3.00 / 2) (#10)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:07:11 AM EST
    say. We have seen this over and over and over. If he continually says I will check with the leadership on the ground. What if they suggest we have permanent bases, or semi-permanent bases, what will he do. Obama is using Bush "techniques" to get by. Sorry, he keeps changing his story. I'm not a McCain fan, but at least he's been consistent.

    Senator McCain has not been consistent. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:09:06 AM EST
    He sponsored an immigration reform bill with truly reformative components, then backed away from those portions when his candidacy began.  Now he is mouthing reformation to Latino constituencies.  

    Parent
    Bad example (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:50:40 AM EST
    McCain backed away from immigration reform with a very specific and honest explanation.  He said, "I learned the country isn't ready for this."

    There are still some bits and pieces of the old straight-talking McCain left, and that was one of them.

    Parent

    He's been consistent on Iraq. (3.66 / 3) (#21)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:14:39 AM EST
    I find nothing wrong with changing your position on any issue as long as you have a plausable reason to offer instead of not being truthful. Obama's position has changed, he has said it has not. He, like Bush, pushes it to the leadership on the ground instead of leading the fight. If he really wanted to get us out, he would have voted that way in the Senate. He didn't.

    Parent
    Like you O/T post, what Mr. Obama wrote (none / 0) (#76)
    by mrjerbub on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:56:25 AM EST
    was campaign retoric, not an Op-Ed. He is still trying to be on all sides of the issue. He should not have used McCain's name anywhere in this regurgatation of his stump speech. IMO he can't be trusted.

    Parent
    There is no "flip flop" on Iraq (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:10:57 AM EST
    This is a 100% media driven right wing comment.  He has not said anything different.  

    Parent
    BALONEY (3.00 / 2) (#57)
    by northeast73 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:46:12 AM EST
    Just because he carefully parsed his words throughtout the primary, so that he can SAY his position hasnt changed, does NOT change the fact that many were given a DIFFERENT impression of his position a few months ago.

    So you are saying because he was clever about this that its our fault for thinkin he's flip-flopped?

    Oh but he's Obama...he can do no wrong...its always our fault.

    Parent

    I have never eaten ballony (side note) (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:51:22 AM EST
    I don't think Obama can do no wrong.  I just happen to not see the different impressions that you see on this issue.  I think he has been very consistent on this point.  I think a lot of people take the nuances that any war decision should entail as flip flops or changes in policy.  

    Parent
    He was not so quick... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by northeast73 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:54:51 AM EST
    ...to call his position "nuanced" when he needed to get the Progressive in a tizzy during the primaries.

    He needed a "wedge" issue with Hillary.  He left folks with the impression that He was THE ONE to end the war, and end it NOW.

    He INTENTIONALLY gave that impression...so he could win...and is NOW using his "nuances" to wiggle out of it.

    Baloney, indeed.

    Parent

    Oh and by the way... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:39:07 PM EST
    Obama has now completely revamped the "Issues: Iraq" page of his website in order to conform with his, like totally unchanged, position. ;-)

    Parent
    He promised he would immediately (4.00 / 1) (#94)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:25:08 PM EST
    begin withdrawing troops from Iraq and have them all out in 16 months. Then, Samantha Power said his campaign promises were just a "best-case scenario," in the same interview in which she called Hillary a monster. (What was that woman thinking?!)

    Obama had no credibility with me on Iraq after that.

    Parent

    It Was Nuanced Since 2006 (none / 0) (#121)
    by daring grace on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:43:12 PM EST
    And it has evolved as events have changed.

    If people listened to the headline and never took the time to READ the policy in its entirety, any misunderstanding they had is their fault, not his.

    I hear him saying the same basic ideas about Iraq that he said from the beginning.

    Parent

    The only interesting thing about your comment. . . (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:16:58 AM EST
    is that you managed to use the words "McCain" and "consistent" in the same sentence.

    McCain is shamelessly inconsistent, switching back and forth (and back again) on numerous issues.  Obama has one shameless change of position -- telcom immunity -- but McCain makes him look like an absolute piker when it comes to flip flopping.

    Parent

    lol (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:19:05 AM EST


    Parent
    How many flip-flops has this (none / 0) (#33)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:21:56 AM EST
    site talked that Obama has made in the last 2 weeks? Many!

    Parent
    As far as front page issues. . . (none / 0) (#41)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:32:38 AM EST
    I believe only FISA -- a genuine, shameless, flip flop -- has been heavily featured.  A couple of other issues (guns, death penalty) in which Obama has loosey-goosey positions have also been discussed.

    There's been a lot more assertion of flip-flopping in the comments, but those arguments haven't really been promoted by the front page (although they haven't been shot down there either).

    Parent

    FISA, yes. Criminal justice issues no. (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:35:58 AM EST
    BTD doesn't do criminal justice.  Jeralyn favors the SCOTUS majority view of the 2nd Amendment and abhors the death penalty.  

    Parent
    Umm (none / 0) (#47)
    by CST on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:36:57 AM EST
    Just about all of those posts were making fun of the flip-flop meme except for the ones on FISA.

    As for McCain, you say it's okay to change your mind based on reasoning, etc...  So how do you defend McCain NOT changing his position on the war?  Also, what was his reasoning behind flipping on Immigration, if not that conservatives didn't like his plan?  He even admitted the reason he changed his stance on immigration was that people didn't like it much.  Not to mention that every other position McCain "flipped" on was from a position that was reasonable to a right-wing position.  And that is somehow ok because he had an explanation?

    Parent

    Have you ever changed your (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:41:52 AM EST
    position on an issue? If so, why? As long as you have a resonable explanation then what's the problem. You are, however, subject to people's interpretation of your explanation, agreement, or disagreement of your new position. It's called "growing." When you take all sides on all issues, you stand for nothing. I want someone who will stand up for this country and its interests. FISA alone (among other changes)is not standing up for this country...it was a vote, imo, against this country's constitution.

    Parent
    I guess I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by CST on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:46:43 AM EST
    With your use of the term "reasonable explanation".  None of McCain's flip-flops had a "reasonable explanation" for me.  They had right-wing talking points that I vehemently disagree with and find patently false.


    Parent
    Exactly my point. You didn't (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:50:31 AM EST
    agree with it, but he can change his position and try and explain it away. Obama changes many of his positions and instead of explaining it, he tells you it has not changed and makes you question what you thought originally. He seems to take no responsibility for anything he says or does. This is not adult behavior. This is what defiant children do. Listen to his "words" as he has told us.

    Parent
    Right.... (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by CST on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:31:27 PM EST
    You mean like this?:

    John McCain (2003):I think the victory will be rapid, within about three weeks.

    John McCain (2007):When I voted to support this war, I knew it was probably going to be long and hard and tough, and those that voted for it and thought that somehow it was going to be some kind of an easy task, then I'm sorry they were mistaken.

    emphasis provided

    But yea, John McCain always takes responsibility for what he said :)

    Parent

    Shouldn't Policy Change As Events Do? (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by daring grace on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:40:13 AM EST
    The New Republic has an editorial

    link

    about Obama's Iraq stance and also about the larger issue of the "flip flop charge as it's leveled in political discourse. They make the point that the situation in Iraq has changed since Obama first formulated his policy so it's unreasonable to expect that his policy would not.

    Their argument (which I agree with) is that Obama's essential position hasn't drastically altered. It was always heavily nuanced, nuance not being something the mainstream punditocracy relates to well.

    snip:

    "That flip-flopping has become the most damning accusation against a politician speaks to the poverty of the political process. Here's how the system currently works: As candidates prepare to enter the race, they devise a foreign policy platform. Then, for the next two years, they must resolutely defend that platform. Any deviation from their original position papers will be treated by their opponents--and, in turn, by the press--as a deep character flaw, evidence that a candidate will do whatever it takes to win the presidency."

    Parent

    Really? (4.20 / 5) (#16)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:12:11 AM EST
    I'm not a McCain fan, but at least he's been consistent.
    For someone who is not a McSame fan you sure are defending him quite a bit. And to call McSame consistent is basically shilling, because it could not be farther from the truth.

    Parent
    First of all, I believe (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:19:09 AM EST
    respectful tidyings toward anyone running for president should be utilized. I have never called him anything other than Sen. McCain, or McCain. (the same with Sen. Obama) I am a shill for no one. I emphasized that I am not a McCain fan. That is not shilling. McCain's Iraq policy, for which I was replying, has not changed. And, for the record, as I have stated, there is nothing wrong is changing your position (we all do it), as long as you have a reasonable, logical and real explanation. Sen. Obama has shown that he doesn't like to be called on the carpet or be responsible for the "words" he says. That is a child's response, not an matured adult.

    Parent
    If don't like Obama's positions just wait a while. (3.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Saul on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:27:35 AM EST


    Words and Actions (3.00 / 4) (#82)
    by santarita on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:04:35 PM EST
    Once you eliminate the rhetoric about being against the war from the start, Sen. Obama's plan for Iraq doesn't seem that much different than Bush's plan or McCain's.

     In fact Bush will start implementing "Obama's plan".  Bush will start a significant draw down in September with plans to continue the draw down.  The generals are already talking about how Iraq is ready to provide their own security in 2009.  Bush will declare that the surge has worked and we are in mop-up mode.  

    Under Obama's plan or Bush-McCain's plan an American military presence will remain.  The size and nature of that force is quite nebulous at this time.  Time and circumstances will dictate the force that remains.    

    The focus of the military will shift to Afghanistan and Pakistan regardless of who wins the Presidency.  

    When all is said and done, the results will be the same under either McCain or Obama and will occur within roughly the same period of time.  Once again, progressives will read into Obama's words what they want to read and will see differences between McCain and Obama that are matters of degrees rather than real and substantive differences.

    I think this pretty much covers it. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by dk on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:26:01 PM EST
    The only further thing to say is that it is the Democratic controlled Congress that has the final say on what happens (i.e. they hold the pursestrings).  It really doesn't matter whether McCain or Obama is president.

    Parent
    Ludicrous. (3.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:27:15 PM EST
    Your effort to draw a false equivalence between Obama's longstanding plan for a full withdrawal (no permanent bases) and McBush's Johnny-come-lately "withdrawal" plan (which is really just a removal of surge forces, coupled with permanent bases and an open-ended troop commitment) is just plain silly, and embarrassing for you.

    Parent
    Agreed pegasus (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:35:02 PM EST
    Even if Obama's waffling in public, to suggest his or the Dem's position is similar is at best absurd.

    Parent
    And this, my friends, ends W.O.R.M. (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by dk on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:51:43 PM EST
    story hour for the day.

    Tune in for tomorrow's chapter, entitled:  "Sure, Obama is waffling publicly on abortion rights, but I know he believes in reproductive choice for women who are feeling blue and fail to get a signature from their pastors.  I just know it!  It's on his website, and everyone at last weekend's Obama house party totally agreed with me!!"

    Parent

    Obama has NO PLANS (none / 0) (#113)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:58:22 PM EST
    for a full withdrawal. Where are people getting that idea?

    Oh, yes. From Obama's totally clear, unchanging rhetoric on Iraq.

    Snort.

    If you wanted a full withdrawal from Iraq, the ONLY candidate who was supporting that was Kucinich (okay, possibly Richardson and Gravel IIRC). All the others said they would leave troops there to fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Obama is saying that now and he said it then. However, he has "clarified" his language a lot since the debates.

    Parent

    Oh, Really? (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by santarita on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:42:32 PM EST
    Do you really think that for all practical purposes, Obama will not maintain a strategic military presence in Iraq?  He may not call them "permanent bases" but for all intents and purposes there will be a US military presence in Iraq for as long as it suits our strategic purposes.   His ideas of the size and nature of the strategic presence may differ from McCain's. But those ideas will evolve.

    I see difference in semantics between McCain and Obama not fundamental differences.

    Perhaps the only difference that is substantive is the notion of obtaining international cooperation in dealing with the many problems caused by our botched occupation.  Unfortunately, we can't force international cooperation.  

    Parent

    Semantics?? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    Obama has had the same plan -- a target of two brigades a month, starting ASAP, with the exact pace and logistics determined by military advice, and no permanent bases -- for a year and a half now.  McCain has offered nothing with any degree of specificity regarded withdrawal, and has explicitly advocated permanent bases.  

    That's not a semantic difference.  It's a policy difference.  All you have in favor of your argument is your own conjecture -- that Obama will underperform on his promises, and McCain will overperform on his.

    Parent

    Strategic Importance of Iraq (3.00 / 1) (#127)
    by santarita on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:33:36 PM EST
    I don't see that Obama or McCain differ a lot on the strategic importance of Iraq for the US.  Both will make decisions based on what the military people say.  Circumstances on the ground are largely dictating tactics and strategy.  What we will end up with for the foreseeable future is a substantial American presence in Iraq.

    I will grant that the international community may be more favorably disposed towards a Democrat than a Republican.  

    Parent

    "substantial American presence" (none / 0) (#130)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:01:05 PM EST
    That could be 130,000 troops, with a neocon agenda deciding if/when they come home (or if they go to Iran next) or 20,000, playing a very limited role.  Both numbers are "substantial", but you are kidding yourself if you think there's no difference between the candidates on which number is more likely.

    Parent
    Interesting, as the current Iraqi (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:57:13 AM EST
    government apparently doesn't want any long-term agreement permitting U.S. forces to remain in Iraq indefinitely.  But is Obama's position naive in light of the theory Iran will rush in to fill the vacuum?  Why would anyone want to be U.S. President?  

    Hard choices (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:13:20 AM EST
    But you know George W. had these really experienced foreign policy types to help in these areas (or so we were informed in 2000). Course we were also told that Dubya would "jawbone" those oil prices down.  

    Sigh. Ultimately I think it wiser to cut our losses even if it means declaring victory while leaving.

    Parent

    A Nice Flag Waving Victory Parade (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:17:24 AM EST
    With BushCo leading it as we exit. Even if it is a charade, who cares. Sounds like the perfect face saving thing televised around the world. Guiliani can handle the security fences so that the tee vee show stays pretty.

    Parent
    Parade for Bush? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:36:05 AM EST
    You mean like this one?

    That's a parade for Bush I could support.

    Parent

    Yes That One Too (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:48:32 AM EST
    But if it takes putting Cod Piece on a parade float in a flight suit with socks stuffed in the crotch,  to declare victory and get out of Iraq, I am all for it.

    Then on to the next event.

    Parent

    Please! Not during lunch hour! (none / 0) (#66)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:50:16 AM EST


    Parent
    Don't read too much. . . (none / 0) (#5)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:00:15 AM EST
    in al Maliki's statement.  He needs to support full sovereignty for the Iraqi government for internal political reasons, and that means no permanent US presence.  On the other hand, he needs US troops to prop up his government.  The time frame he mentioned was two to three years, considerably longer Obama is talking about and long enough to really meantime "sometime in the medium term future".

    Parent
    The Iran-Iraq War, 1980-88, should appear (none / 0) (#42)
    by wurman on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:32:58 AM EST
    to be a "lesson" for strategic planning here.  It seems to me that hardly any factor could unite all of the Iraqi factions more quickly than a presence by Iran.  The enmity & hatreds built up over the decades would hit flashpoint instantly.

    It is unlikely that Bu$hInc & their ignorant, anti-historical, PNAC neokonz could even offer 2 guesses as to the chances or odds or possibilities of how Iran would respond to a complete "power" vacuum in Iraq.

    I hope that Sen. Obama has access to planners who can, in fact, articulate 15 or 20 scenarios.

    'Paging General Clark; paging Wes Clark, please.'  And, in addition, Pres. Clinton, Pres. Carter, & Secy. Madeline Albright, etc., to include also such folks as Adm. Fallon, Gen. Zinni, Sandy Berger, Richard Clark . . . et al.

    Parent

    Maliki seems to consider Iran an ally. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:47:05 AM EST


    Parent
    Yes. That Shia & Shia majority connect--- (none / 0) (#140)
    by wurman on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:10:45 PM EST
    Al Jazeera (link) seemed to tippy-toe around that at the time.

    My guess is that al-Maliki can see that Iraq would not be able to defend itself in the event of a total USA precipitous withdrawal.

    Could also be rascals making nice before the dust-up.


    Parent

    Another flip flop (none / 0) (#3)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:57:45 AM EST
    Obama clearly stated in the Nevada debate with Hillary that his plan was to pull out all the troops by the end of next year (2009) - not 16 months to withdraw most troops.

    Link

    He has been saying 16 months since the debates (none / 0) (#8)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:05:53 AM EST


    Parent
    No, he has been saying (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:13:39 AM EST
    several different things.  You read here, you've seen the links.

    Parent
    Is He Saying Different Things? (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by daring grace on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:49:38 AM EST
    Or are all of these things different hedges contained in his policy where 16 months or the end of next year or whatever is the headline and the footnotes offer details about contingency and eventualities?

    I linked to a New Republic editorial upthread that suggests the latter.

     They quote a November 2006, speech:

        "I am not suggesting this timetable be overly rigid. ... The redeployment could be temporarily suspended if the parties in Iraq reach an effective political arrangement that stabilizes the situation and offers us a clear and compelling rationale for maintaining current troop levels. ... In such a scenario, it is conceivable that a significantly reduced U.S. force might remain in Iraq for a more extended period of time."


    Parent

    Yes, he is. (none / 0) (#126)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:14:33 PM EST
    But you keep saying the same things in denying it.

    Your words, no matter how many you keep repeating here, do not erase his words.  Or his hypocrisy.

    Parent

    Repetition (none / 0) (#139)
    by daring grace on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:08:52 PM EST
    is pretty common around here on all sides in the various discourses, but if I'm repeating myself here, I apologize.

    Parent
    He's recently. . . (none / 0) (#20)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:13:40 AM EST
    been suggesting (correctly, in my opinion) that his plan is subject to "refinement" -- which in political-speak could mean it becomes a seventeen month plan, or that he abandons it entirely.

    Since proposing a precise plan for something as complex as ending this misbegotten war is obviously pretty ridiculous, I think it's clear the plan was never really anything but political fodder for people who only deal in absolutes.  Obviously the final policy is unlikely to look like the campaign promise.

    Parent

    Good point (none / 0) (#37)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:27:31 AM EST
    The only thing that is not flip flopping at this point is Bush and McCain's refusal to look at this disaster and to get of this mess.  I just don't understand how responsible adults could look at his words and goals on Iraq and not see consistency.  I follow this campaign daily and the consistent message I have heard is: 1)start getting out of Iraq on day one, 2) Try to do get out within 16 months, 3) listen to the generals and change the plan as the situation changes, 4) increase the troops in Afganistan.  

    Parent
    And herein lies Obama's out.. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:32:34 AM EST
     
    "listen to the generals and change the plan as the situation changes"

    This is a GWB strategy. If the general's tell me to leave the troops there, or if they need more "boots" I'll listen to them. What if the general says we need a base there to continue to keep the peace. Will Obama explain that as his general's decision?      


    Parent

    No that is not the out (none / 0) (#51)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:41:16 AM EST
    What he has said is that he will give them the "lets get out" command, and then they will design a plan and he will listen to it.  But the goal will always be to get out within 16 months

    Parent
    If the Generals say they need more time? (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Radix on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:04:51 PM EST
    Then what?

    Parent
    Can you supply a link. . . (none / 0) (#81)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:04:21 PM EST
    to Obama actually saying what you say he said?  Because I think the original statement is closer to what I've read about his statements -- that he will, in fact, simply listen to the military commanders on the ground.

    Parent
    From the press conference he gave (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:13:50 PM EST
    the same day he made the "refine" comment.

    "Let me be as clear as I can be," he said. "I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war -- responsibly, deliberately, but decisively. And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades a month, and again, that pace translates into having our combat troops out in 16 months' time."

    From the NYT.

    Parent

    Look for the weasel words, as my logic (none / 0) (#90)
    by Radix on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:21:14 PM EST
    Prof. would always say.

    And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades a month, and again, that pace translates into having our combat troops out in 16 months' time."

    there you go, he has his out.

    Parent

    Thank you. . . (none / 0) (#110)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:53:21 PM EST
    that does, indeed, seem to indicate that he intends to impose his will on the Joint Chiefs.

    Parent
    Here you go. (none / 0) (#101)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:39:47 PM EST
    From No Quarter (yes, I know no one likes the site) - but look at the two videos of Obama speaking - where he contradicts himself from one video to the next.

    LINK

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#53)
    by CST on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:43:11 AM EST
    I thought the GWB strategy was to ignore the generals and do whatever the hell he wanted.

    Parent
    GWB always said he'll (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:46:36 AM EST
    listen to his generals when he needed an "out" to justify whatever his Iraq plan was at the moment. Obama is giving himself the same out. The fact that he is just now going to Iraq is quite troubling. When he talks about going and nuancing his position when he gets back, shows his lack of judgement on this issue for me. He should have gone a long time ago. Instead he said it was a "show" watching the pols walking the streets to show how safe it was etc. Well, now he will be the "show."

    Parent
    I suspect for some (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:52:00 AM EST
    whatever Obama does will show his lack of judgment on whatever the issue of the moment is

    Parent
    Obama did ... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by TChris on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:55:49 AM EST
    in fact, go "a long time ago."  He visited Iraq in January 2006.  This will be his second trip.

    Parent
    I'm afraid the reality is (none / 0) (#17)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:13:02 AM EST
    that we will have some level of permanent military presence in Iraq.  Like it or not, we have commercial interests dug in there now, and for the forseeable future.

    This is the right statement to make, but I don't see how he will be able to defend a 'no military presence' position in the long run.

    I've been wrong before though, as we know.

    In the past he hasn't ruled out (none / 0) (#31)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:21:18 AM EST
    contracting out security. His statement leaves wiggle room here for that option and others:


    Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, . . .

    As long as our bases/presence are different than Sk, he's got room, right?

    Didn't Bush say he was starting to redeploy the troops to Afghanistan?

    Parent

    The last of 5 surge brigades will be withdrawn (none / 0) (#23)
    by Green26 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:16:55 AM EST
    from Iraq in the near future. Obama wants to put an additional 2 brigades in Afghanistan.

    Where's the troop "shortage"? While the two wars have strained the military, I don't see why the Iraq war needs to be wound down before more troops can be sent to Afghanistan.

    A big concern of my Ranger son is that Obama will arbitrarily withdraw so many troops from Iraq to fulfill campaign promises, that it will strain and endanger the remaining troops.

    The Iraq war needs to be wound down (none / 0) (#48)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:38:22 AM EST
    because it is an utterly pointless waste of lives and resources.  It's not because there's a troop shortage in Afghanistan (although there is).

    And the mission in Iraq will be scaled back and transferred to Iraqi security forces as the withdrawal happens, so there will be no added risk for our troops there.

    Parent

    Some context on the non-permanent permanent bases (none / 0) (#25)
    by kempis on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:17:05 AM EST
    Even the Bush Administration has denied they're a goal.

    Yes, but they're lying. . . (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:18:52 AM EST
    and pretty transparently too.

    Parent
    And we know Obama isn't because...? (none / 0) (#133)
    by kempis on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:25:11 PM EST
    Look, I understand that Obama's supporters are relieved to see him say something that sounds progressive after a bit of a dry spell--and that sounds a lot more snarky than I intend.

    But the fact remains that those of us who supported Hillary tend to be far more skeptical of his veracity. After all, he is the guy who a few months ago vowed to filibuster telecom immunity. He also once upon a time intended to stick to public funding for the campaign. He wants Jerusalem to be solely under Jewish control when he's talking to AIPAC and then a day later, when quizzed about this rather radical step and aware that this didn't go over so well with the Palestinians and the Muslim world, he said that of course these things would have to be worked out to everyone's satisfaction. When talking with evangelicals about abortion, he dismisses "mental distress" as a legitimate health issue for late-term abortion. He clarifies it later.

    He has a real message problem. The only thing that saves him is that McCain does, too. If he were up against a GOP candidate with Rovian message discipline, he'd be heading into serious trouble. Right now, both candidates just provoke doubt in a lot of people.

    Back to this issue, it's not even such a radically progressive notion, not if Rumsfeld and Bush and Cheney and others have declared that we don't intend to establish permanent bases. I haven't seen McCain's remarks in support of permanent bases in Iraq, but if he made him, he's either a political idiot or a boldly honest (and probably doomed) candidate--not that the two things are mutually exclusive at all. :(

    Parent

    I found his statement on Afghanistan (none / 0) (#36)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:27:29 AM EST
    much more interesting than his repetition of his Iraq talking points.

    More troops in Afghanistan will, supposedly, aid us in accomplishing the "mission" there.

    But what IS that mission? BushCheney have admitted they're no longer looking for OBL. So what the hell are we doing there?

    Sorry, Obama is not a deep or informed thinker on these issues. I don't trust him to get us out of Bush's quagmires in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

    I assume our current mission is to (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:34:06 AM EST
    control the Taliban.  But then why aren't we in Zimbabwe and a host of other countries?  

    Parent
    See? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:46:14 AM EST
    Why isn't there a clear and succinct mission for the troops to accomplish? Why do we have to guess what we're doing in Afghanistan?

    I'll answer my own question: It's because the American people would not like what we're up to. See: the many shifting rationales for going into Iraq, all of which except "We wanted the oil leases" have been debunked.

    Don't the troops deserve the minimal respect of knowing what the h#ll they are doing in Afghanistan?

    When Obama tells me what the troop increase is supposed to accomplish, then I might think he has a clue. Right now, he is really not impressing me.

    And no, before you ask, neither is John McCain. They are both unacceptable to me.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#49)
    by CST on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:39:16 AM EST
    I think the fact that we were "attacked" by a group associated with the Taliban makes a big difference.  Personally, I would have liked to see us play a bigger role as a negotiater in Zimbabwe, if we still had the clout.

    Parent
    McCain Camp Just Smeared Obama's Patriotism (none / 0) (#64)
    by methuselas baby on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:49:23 AM EST
    In a conference call to reporters Randy Scheunemann said, "Senator Obama seems to think losing a war will help him win an election."  Senator Lindsey Graham said,  "The Democratic Party built a political strategy around us losing the war in Iraq."

    Yeah, Democrats are all about getting our guys killed.  Democrats took us into a war based on lies.  I think some Republicans tell themselves lies so many times they begin believing them.
    That still doesn't make the lies true.

    He does have a point. (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by northeast73 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:51:46 AM EST
    Do you think the Democrats would like to see any kind of victory in Iraq?

    How can they hand that around the necks of the Reps for the next few decades, if there is any kind of success.

    I am beginning to believe the "democrats are invested in defeat" line myself.

    Parent

    Smells Like Victory (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by daring grace on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:05:11 PM EST
    Well, something certainly smells in this nonsense about the Dems not wanting to "see any kind of victory in Iraq"

    What exactly does this victory look like and how long (and at what cost of lives and resources) will it take?

    It's awfully convenient for the Republican administration to bumble us into this ugly fiasco and then have McCain (running for W's 3rd term) stand back and jeer when the Dems finally propose ways for cleaning up the mess.

    Parent

    What if victory... (1.00 / 1) (#88)
    by northeast73 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:14:46 PM EST
    ...was us leaving when we and the Iraqis have agreed that the country is on its feet and the violence is minimal?

    If that happens under a Rep president, the Dems will be very very very very dissappointed.

    I know that now.  Thats why i left them this year.

    They are playing politics with the war, oil prices, the economy...you name it.

    Parent

    Aye, There's The Rub (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by daring grace on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:32:45 PM EST
    "...leaving when we and the Iraqis have agreed..."

    Which Iraqis?

    There are some Iraqis who want us out of there yesterday. And there are some--notably minorities whose wellbeing is somewhat protected by our presence who probably want us there forever.

    Your comment about who is in office when this so called 'victory' occurs is irrelevant to me, because my interest in us getting out has little to do with political advantage and everything to do with putting an end to this destructive and criminal exercise.

    You might be surprised that most Americans aren't fooled by this mirage the Republicans call 'victory' any more either.

    Parent

    A lot of words... (none / 0) (#93)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:24:48 PM EST
    ... not a lot of specifics. The whole thing could have been boiled down to one paragraph.

    Still, generally the right tone.

    Obama v. McCain on Iraq Policy | 145 comments (145 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment