Coming Soon: Obama reneges on Iraq timetable
This week, Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama got a hint of the difficulty of making campaign promises about Iraq. Especially anything that lays out a specific timetable for withdrawing troops.
If elected, the fledgling Illinois senator vows to "immediately" begin to remove troops from Iraq, pulling out "one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months," according to Obama's campaign web site.
He says he'd keep "some troops in Iraq" to protect the U.S. embassy and diplomats.
But watch for Obama to change his tune on the 16-month pledge after he returns from a visit to Iraq this summer -- especially if his poll numbers dip.
After 4,000 U.S. troops have died and at least 20,000 more injured in the fight to free the Iraqis from a murderous dictator, why would Obama risk throwing away our troops' hard won gains that finally began to emerge in early 2007?
Mark my words, he won't risk losing the presidency over this issue.
The whole world's watching.
If elected, the fledgling Illinois senator vows to "immediately" begin to remove troops from Iraq, pulling out "one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months," according to Obama's campaign web site.
He says he'd keep "some troops in Iraq" to protect the U.S. embassy and diplomats.
But watch for Obama to change his tune on the 16-month pledge after he returns from a visit to Iraq this summer -- especially if his poll numbers dip.
After 4,000 U.S. troops have died and at least 20,000 more injured in the fight to free the Iraqis from a murderous dictator, why would Obama risk throwing away our troops' hard won gains that finally began to emerge in early 2007?
Mark my words, he won't risk losing the presidency over this issue.
The whole world's watching.
posted by Keith Phucas at
5:55 AM
5 Comments:
Keith, we all know that there are big differences between a Primary campaign and a General Election campaign. Obama really had no choice but to re-work some of his positions in order to appeal to the masses of voters who are not part of the Democratic base.
I happen to think it is sad that U.S. politics works in this manner, but it does, and we have to deal with it until the system changes, hopefully, sometime in the not too distant future.
It would be interesting to know you views on McCain's innumerable flips and flops since he decided to give-up his alleged "maverick" stance, and run for president. We have the Bush tax cuts, that he was against, until he was for them. We have his aggressive stance against torture under any circumstances, until he was OK with it. We have his insistence that off-shore drilling would be an environmental disaster, as well as not really doing anything substantial to alleviate the energy crisis, until he decided it was a good idea. Need I go on?
So, let's make a fair comparison of flips and flops. I will start by granting you that Obama is changing some positions, which is what I expected all along. I wish it wasn't so, but it is. However, he is still legions ahead of McCain in my opinion, who seems to be in love with the battle, and believes the best way for America to remain great is to be in a constant state of war with someone. And his views on the economy don't even, in my opinion, warrant serious discussion. Oh yeah, and his health care plan....ummm, can't discuss that either, because he simply does not have one.
It is your turn now to talk about McCain's policy changes, and why you feel, if you do, that McCain's way is the BETTER way.
My good friend Michael. Just like a good liberal, always going for the slide of hand - the misdirection approach. Instead of arguing Keith's point of Obama flip-flopping, you argue that its the system that is flawed not Obama. According to you, Obama is just a pawn to the masses of a misguided polity. Obama firmly believes in withdrawal, but in order to win he must soften his stance. Obama, the kindred soul, strives for change in a corrupt system.
Your argument then goes even further. In a complete one hundred eighty degree turn, you smash McCain for flip-flopping. So, why is Obama changing his opinion to get elected, but McCain is by his very nature a flip-flopper?
In order for us to be more willing to buy your snake oil, you tone down your argument by being gracious and saying "Obama is changing some positions." But, you immediately follow up by calling McCain a warmonger.
I dare say your rhetorical style is reminiscent of a lawyer in a courtroom. I once had a lawyer tell me the following proverb, "If you have the evidence, argue the evidence. If you have emotion, argue emotion. If you have nothing, then just ARGUE!"
- EJ
OK EJ. Let me say it plain. I am disappointed with a couple of changes Obama has made, such as his position on the FISA bill as one example. However, I do not believe he is flipping or flopping on his Iraq policies. Listen to, or read his statements from his debates last September, or any other number of examples, and you will see he is saying essentially the same thing about Iraq as he said then. But McCain has nothing to offer, so his campaign has got to play by the good ol' Rovian handbook and attack and smear the opposition rather than discuss the issues honestly.
Obama is not a God to me, he is a presidential candidate. McCain is not my personal enemy, I just do not care for his politics on many issues, and I do NOT like the nature of his campaign, considering it is going totally against what he had promised.
All that being said, I am very much accustomed to politics and I have been involved all my life. These guys are professional politicians and their campaigns are run by such as well. American politics is a dirty game. I do not consider Obama to be the poor victim of the system. When I think he is wrong about something, I assign the responsibility to him directly. No excuses. But that does negate my arguments about the way campaigns are run.
Once again, I did not argue Obama's switch on his Iraq position with Keith, simply because I do not see any change whatsoever. However, I should have taken the time to state that unequivocally, rather than just ignoring the issue, and for that I take responsibility.
But please EJ, show me the same respect I have shown you in our ongoing conversations. I have never cheapened anything you had to say. I think I have disagreed with you respectfully, and I have also thanked you for what I consider your exemplary service to our country. In this current response however, you really seemed to go out of your way to mock me. That is not the kind of discussion I had in mind, and I have little doubt that you too would prefer a respectful and honest, not to mention friendly discourse.
I admire your dedication to your beliefs, even those I disagree with. Please try to show the same consideration for my heartfelt beliefs as well.
Michael, do not be offended. I merely challenged your rhetorical style. There were, as I stated in my previous response, holes in your logic chain. In fact, that is how I crafted and continue to craft all of my arguments. I look for the separation between logic and statement, define the parameters, and then make a counter-claim. In this instance, I let you in on how I think as opposed to a direct rebuttal.
Again, I apologize if you took offense. I do have a lot of fun bantering back and forth. Between the two of us we can solve all the world's problems.
By the way, please do not feel obligated to thank me for my service. I appreciate your kindness, but I do not want you to hold back. This is meant to be an intellectually stimulating exercise. You cannot engage fully if you think you might offend me.
-EJ
EJ, I am sure I overreacted a bit to what you said as well. I am dealing with a serious medical problem and I spend most of my day in a lot of pain, and sometimes, no matter how hard I try, it does interfere with my generally genial and jolly spirit. :-) No offense taken. Oh yes, and I promise never to thank you for your service again. :-) Actually, I kinda find it annoying that so often no one in the media feels they cannot make a comment before they twist themselves inside out in order to convince their audience that they honour the service of an individual or the military collective. I would truly hope that would just be a given. And then, whaddaya know, I go and do the same thing with you. :-)
Anyhoo, I have been crazy busy these passed coupla days and I am very behind in my email and other responsibilities. It is also 4:11 A.M. and my brain isn't functioning right now in a way that I would feel confident in composing my thoughts succinctly. However, I am very much looking forward to continuing our conversation, because I feel deep down, we both have the same goals for our country, even if we have different ideas as to how we might best achieve them.
Be well,
Michael
Post a Comment
<< Home