Well at least Obama is consistent. Consistent in changing his story to fit the venue.
Yesterday he told the press he had spoken with Iraq’s foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, and had told him that he would set a timetable for withdrawal as President. He also said that Zebari had expressed their desire for sovereignty:
“He did emphasize his belief that we’ve made real progress and I think was eager to see political accommodations between the factions follow up in the wake of this progress.
“I think that he expressed what President Maliki has expressed as well,” Obama continued, “which is that the Iraqis are obviously concerned about their sovereignty and are not seeking a long term occupation by the U.S. And so my sense is that we should be able to execute a withdrawal and set a timeframe – a timetable that continues to allow US forces to support Iraqi forces in going after terrorists, that continues to train the Iraqi police and military as long as we’re not training militias that are turning on each other.”
Problem is Zebari told reporters that it was a much different conversation:
…Mr. Obama has not altered his position: He still proposes withdrawing most U.S. troops according to a fixed timetable, set to the most rapid pace at which commanders have said American forces could be pulled out.
Mr. Zebari, who has served as foreign minister in every Iraqi government since 2003, finds Mr. Obama’s proposal worrying. In a meeting with Post editors and reporters Tuesday, he said that after all the pain and sacrifices of the past five years, “we are just turning the corner in Iraq.” A precipitous withdrawal, he said, “would create a huge vacuum and undo all the gains and achievements. And the others” — enemies of the United States — “would celebrate.”
Mr. Zebari said he told Mr. Obama that “Iraq is not an island.” In other words, an American withdrawal that destabilized the country would also roil the region around it and embolden U.S. adversaries such as al-Qaeda and Iran. “We have a deadly enemy,” Mr. Zebari said. “When he sees that you commit yourself to a certain timetable, he will use this to increase pressure and attacks, to make it look as though he is forcing you out. We have many actors who would love to take advantage of that opportunity.” Mr. Zebari says he believes U.S. forces can and should be drawn down. His point is that reductions should be made gradually, as the Iraqi army becomes stronger.
The foreign minister said “my message” to Mr. Obama “was very clear. . . . Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress.” He said he was reassured by the candidate’s response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising a visit, Mr. Obama said that “if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field.“ Certainly, it makes sense to consult with those who, like Mr. Zebari, have put their lives on the line for an Iraq that would be a democratic U.S. ally. Mr. Obama ought to listen carefully to what they are saying.
Way different perspective huh? Who is lying here?
Jim Geraghty also takes note of Obama telling the foreign minister that he would only take action after consulting with military leaders which differs from what he said during a earlier debate:
ABC’s Charles Gibson: “And, Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, ‘When he is’ — this is talking about you – ‘When he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. There should be no confusion about that.’ So you’d give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?”
Obama: “Because the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie. That’s not the role of the generals. And one of the things that’s been interesting a out the president’s approach lately has been to say, ‘Well, I’m just taking cues from General Petraeus.’ Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission.”
Taking cues from a General after consultation is what good leaders do. A President that wants to micromanage would ignore these cues and tell them what to do instead. So which one will Obama be?
We can’t tell because he changes his story every other week it appears.
Ed Morrissey notes that Obama’s changing story on Iraq appears the same as his NAFTA flip-flop:
This adds another data point to that theory. Zebari’s recollection of the conversation sounds at least a little similar to the NAFTA Dance, in which Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee reportedly assured the Canadian consulate in Chicago that Obama only attacked NAFTA as a campaign ploy.
We should remember what Wright said about Obama right about now:
“Politicians say what they say and do what they do because of electability,” Wright said, arguing that Obama had not seen the sermons played in the media that Obama has called “offensive.” “He had to distance himself because he’s a politician…Whether he gets elected or not, I’m still going to have to be answerable to God.”
This is all about saying whatever is needed to get elected, even if he contradicts himself every other day.
More here.
See author page
Changes his story is a polite way of saying ‘he lies so much he can’t remember when, or who he told what lie to. That is Hussien O’s life, a lie.
With the MSM in a state of constant diminishment and the rise of blogs this sort of BS is truly going to come into play this election cycle, like never before. Obama is toast.
Will thereal Obammasiah please stand up. I am really trying to figure out waht he will do exactly. It changes almost every day.
“Taking cues from a General after consultation is what good leaders do. A President that wants to micromanage would ignore these cues and tell them what to do instead. So which one will Obama be?”
Hopefully, we’ll never find out.
Comrade Obama is the young Jimmy Carter. At least Carter was just stupid and didn’t lie, with Obama we get both stupid and lying in the same package. All Comrade Obama knows is the tired old Democrat Marxist talking points, thinking is definitely not one of his strong points.
I didn’t see a glaring disparity in the two reports, just a difference in “spin”. And if you disqualified anyone who did that from running for office, we’d not have _any_ candidates. See also the John McCain video at
The accusations of “flip flopping” make me nauseous on both sides, frankly. People change their minds, statements crammed into soundbytes lose nuance, and politicians put a different slant on essentially the same core position depending on their audience.
The sky is also blue. NEWS AT 11!!!
No difference? So Fleep, you’re saying Zebari doesn’t know what he said?
Ooh, look at the shiny McCain link distracting us. (shakes head)
No, I’m saying both men are politicians, both have constituent groups that they have to please, and both must do a fair amount of public posturing. If you’ll note the non-bolded portions of the texts cited above, the Obama piece also said, “… a timetable that continues to allow US forces to support Iraqi forces in going after terrorists, that continues to train the Iraqi police and military as long as we’re not training militias that are turning on each other.” This by default implies that there won’t be a complete withdrawal.
Further in the post, it also indicates that Zebari, “… said he was reassured by the candidate’s response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain.”
I imagine it went something like, “Look this is an election year and I’m running on an anti-war platform. I have to talk about withdrawing troops, but I understand how complex the situation is and I’m not going to leave you hanging in the breeze.”
And then both parties go out and say what they have to say to keep their seats.
It’s politics, not flip-flops. And I wasn’t trying to distract with the McCain link, but rather intended to demonstrate that both sides are guilty of the same thing – saying what their various constituent groups want them to say so they can raise money and get support. All candidates promise the sun and the moon at the same time, and then often deliver something else altogether once they get in office. It’s just the way the game is played. If you’re going to bother to critique Obama, then give it some substance, there’s actually lots of room for valid critique. But playing the flip-flop card is just lazy reporting.
Obama’s proposal of CHANGE requires sound judgement to determine which things should change, and which things should be kept, cherished and embraced. Unfortunately Obama and his left wing supporters want to throw out the baby with the dirty bath water. They have no appreciation of U.S. history, or the blood, sweat, and sacrifice it’s taken to make America the greatest country in the world. They seem to believe that before you can create change, first you must discredit, or destroy everything that’s come before. Obama relies on young voters apathy and ignorance of American history and tradition, which makes it easier for them to buy into CHANGE, without any sense of what kind of change is needed. Evidence of this, is Obama supporters embracing his disrespectful alteration of the Presidential seal, to further his personal ambition. Or, Obama’s black liberation church discrediting Thomas Jefferson, because of an alleged affair with a black slave. If Obama is elected President, I predict that American history will be gradually revised, and America as we know it will become barely recognizable.
Well, Fleep.. would you like to reconcile that with BHO’s oft-stated position that is it our presence there preventing Iraqi success? And his prior promises of getting our butts out the day he gets in office?
And to your
Isn’t Obama’s appeal supposed to be that he’s above all that politics as usual game playing? Or is everyone just thrilled to hear it in masterful baritone because it’s an easier lie to swallow? I am utterly confused at the blinders people insist upon wearing.
I certainly agree that both politicians are, first and foremost, opportunists. However when it comes to the subject of Iraq, there’s a not guilty plea in for McCain. Obama, on the other hand, puts a tumble dryer to shame with the RPMs.
I personally found it interesting that when the Iraq leadership came in, I believe they called McCain to chat. But BHO had to call them… Anybody know if this is the facts? It’s the impression I got from reading the separate reports of the conversations of the candidates with the Iraq Assembly visitors. I am also under the impression that the Iraqis laid it out pretty clear for Obama that they are not in the position to let the US go home.
Hi Lee, I think that’s an interesting perspective. I guess I saw the background on his website as sort of a “mash up” of various seals plus Obama’s own iconography. I think this might be an example of a generational difference more than a political difference – many who consider themselves part of the “net generation” believe that mixing up existing art and iconography to create new expressions is not only acceptable, but desirable – it reinvigorates the original art/icon to make it relevant to today’s context and conversations. I understand, though, that many folks feel this is very disrespectful to tradition and the rich history that those kinds of symbols represent.
I think this tension will likely continue to grow as the internet and other technology tools make “mash ups” easier to create.. I guess I see value in both perspectives.
One thing I DEFINITELY agree with you about, though, is the apathy and ignorance of young voters. It always astounds me when I find people who can rattle off sports rosters or band members or stars on a TV show like it’s nothing, but don’t have a clue who their representative or governor is. It’s disgraceful. 🙁
MataHarley: I think it’s shameful that people insist on identifying Obama as “BHO” or emphasize his middle name as some kind of cheap parlor trick. It indicates to me that you’re quite partisan and willing to participate in something that is truly quite ugly. It makes me doubt your sincerity and interest in honest inquiry and debate.
To address your post, I do think that Obama intends to withdraw as many troops as possible as rapidly as possible. I also think that anyone who hopes to not just take office but stay in it for eight years would be absolutely daft to not consider the security needs of the Iraqis. I may not agree with all of Obama’s positions, but I don’t think he’s crazy.
As to his appeal.. I guess I find his position statements more attractive than his baritone, but I can’t speak for everyone. 🙂 I don’t know about who called who re: the Iraqi delegation. If you find a citation somewhere, I hope you’ll post it, that would be interesting information to know.
Oh get a grip. Fleep. I call John Kennedy, JFK, Hillary HRC, Kerry, JFK, Bush GWB, Bush the elder GHB. The list is endless. Beats the tar out of typing the full names. Strikes me that your objection to it may be misplaced hypersensitivity. I don’t give a flying fart his middle name is Hussein. I’d vote for a candidate name Bozo, if I liked his policies. But I certainly believe BHO is a far kinder abbreviation that BO, given the first thing that comes to mind.
That you like his policies and positions, and are not mesmerized by his baritone, is somewhat admirable. But I’d have to part company with you there. Socialism just isn’t my bag.
It’s interesting that you believe it’s okay for *Obama* (feel better? :0) to withdraw “as fast as possible”, and yet not recognize that McCain – or even GWB (were he in term longer) – would do exactly the same. No CIC believes in keeping anything but the needed troop levels. And that is based on who they use as their ground commanders for advise. But withdraw under either candidate is going to happen because of improvements in the Iraq bureaucratic and military infrastructure.
But I find it odd that the DNC claimed their mid term barely win was a mandate for withdrawal.. which they knew they could not accomplish but by cutting funding. Broken promise there. Now they are running a candidate who promised to withdraw immediately, and emphatically states that our presence hinders Iraq progress. Yet not withdrawing all still leaves a troop presence. So how does that translate to any logic but yet a broken campaign promise?
ahhh, but he looks and sounds so good when he misrepresents.
I’ll look around for the news reports INRE who called whom. They did not combine it one report. I noticed in one report they said the Iraqis contacted McCain for a talk. In a different report, it said Obama called them. I thought it odd.
But then Obama’s never bothered to go over there for a first hand report during this past year. Maybe they figured he just wasn’t interested. Obama also refused to get a private briefing from Petraeus. And instead ran the campaign circuit on the same ol, same ol. One would think he could form more sound policy with feedback from those on the ground, no? Evidently not… doesn’t blend well with his long standing rhetoric.
But if I find the reports that reinterate the meeting specifics, I’ll post them here for you.
In the meantime, chill. I’m partisan… yep. We all identify with one party over another. But unfortunately, with my beliefs, I don’t have a candidate to vote for. Only the lesser of two evils.
Fleep: Why is it OK to call Mitt Romney by his middle name and not use Obama’s?
Obama used to go by the name “Barry” when he was trying to white it up. Would that now be off limits to call him Barry?
You say you are attracted to his stand on the issues? But it doesn’t bother you that he’s taken a 180 degree “change” on so many? How do you know what he really stands for?
Mike’s America: You think Obama has “taken a 180 degree” change on so many issues? McCain can barely go a week without flip flopping on one of his former policies…
He’s against wiretapping, then he’s for it. He was for privatizing social security, now he’s against it. He was for the estate tax, now he’s against it. The NRA shouldn’t have a role in GOP policy making, now they should. He was for raising cigarette taxes, now he’s against it. He vowed to balance the budget, now he won’t. He supported Roe vs Wade. Now he is against it.
The list goes on and on (nearly 50 of McCain’s policy “reversals”):
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15924.html
McCain simply does whatever he thinks is politically expedient at the time. He’ll sell out anyone to get your vote.
Does “your guy does it too” really excuse the Obamanation’s behavior and lack of candor?
Perhaps in your mind it does.
***
I clicked on your link and spent a bit of time reading some of the assertions the author presented.
I looked through 12 or 15 and found a great deal of spinning going on. There’s a claim of changing positions but then when you read the underlying linked material the accusation falls apart.
In short I found a long list of corresponding comparisons being put forth as inconsistent.
There’s no real point in hijacking this thread onto what McCain may or may not have done because the issue is clearly Obie.
And so does BHO, Jamie. But evidently, that’s okay with you? Why?
I *expect* a politican to change or alter his policies when he sees the errors of his ways. Altho I have to point out that McCain has been UN’politically correct more than often than not. Iraq is the most obvious issue to point to as an example. Another is immigration. Add the “Gang of 14”, then McCain-Feingold. So much for your claim he is driven by a “politically expedient” mentality.
I have no respect for a politican, running around the country promising to be a “different” kind of POTUS when he, too, is nothing but another beltway opportunist, for sale to the highest bidders. But his pompous piety is what makes it even more objectional to his ever morphing policies.
I also have no respect for a politician who picks US terrorist bombers and race oriented radicals as friends and associates – then tosses them aside because it’s “politically expedient”. They are either worth standing by, or not. Some friend. His wife is a “fair weather” patriot, with a history of applyingaffirmative action policies. This is an attitude shared by her candidate husband.
Amazing that contracts should be awarded for minorities and gender status, and not by fair competitive bids, blind to ownership. To award benefits based on such status is nothing but discrimination, pointed in another direction. Affirmative action has proven unpopular all across this nation, yet it is actively promoted and applied by the Obama’s at every opportunity.
At least McCain, despite his changes in policy attitudes on some issues, has a history of being a genuine maverick. He’s certainly riled enough of us with his centrist/left stands. By contrast, BHO’s “maverick” claims are nothing but empty, feel-good rhetoric. He paints a picture of himself that just isn’t factual, as proven by his own personal history.