Obama Abandons Commitment to Iraq Withdrawal Timetable

Loading

Senator Obama refuses to be boxed in between what he considers two “false choices”, either:

1) …On such and such date, come Hell or high water we’ve gotten our troops out, and be blind to anything that happens in intermediate months

2) …completely defer to whatever the commanders on the ground say (because his military and strategic knowledge is better than theirs)

LINK

By dismissing out of hand the absoluteness of a calender date by which all Americans will be out of Iraq, Senator Obama has just capitulated the political left’s dogma for the past six years (a debate that started in 2002 before the invasion in 2003). Since the time of the DLC Conference in early 2002, Democrats have demanded a deadline for the war, a schedule, and President Bush has resisted. Instead, President Bush has offered various plans for Iraq which since 2003 have included “benchmarks” which would enable US forces to withdraw; actual accomplishments rather than some sort of pass/fail political challenge based on dates on a calender.

Senator Obama no longer sees the dates on a calender as the important thing.

Now, contrary to his own party’s demands since 2002, he will base his own Iraq policy on a bigger picture than gotcha-politics (the only thing that dates on a calender were really intended).

Buh-bye nutroots. Your dreams of bringing the troops home regardless of the situation in Iraq…is now over. Senator Obama is effectively endorsing the same future Iraq policy on President Bush’s benchmark strategy (albeit with perhaps different benchmarks since we are talking half a year from now), and Senator McCain’s commitment to accomplishments rather than politics.

More here.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
38 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I thought the house was being attacked by creatures from the unknown when I heard the screams and moans. Turns out there are a few liberals in the neighborhood who lost it when their boy flipped them the finger on Iraq. Hussein O’s statement that if the political winds change he will stand with Islam still stands, doesn’t it? He’s not too much at standing behind his own statements, positions, and beliefs, even those he has put in writing.

Obama has never seen dates for leaving as the focus. The focus has always been on leaving. I have never heard him speak of withdrawal without the caveat of doing so in a careful manner. Until now Bush has not had a withdrawal plan. Now we have a “conditions-based general time horizon with the aspirational goal of withdrawing the last of our troops in 2010” (because phased redeployment sounds so silly). I’m happy with that.

I don’t see how the term “gotcha politics” applies here. Where’s the “gotcha”?

There was the 2003 plan, the CPA plan, his 2004 campaign plan, then he changed plans in 2006 after the ISG and Dems and American people/polls pushed for a new plan, and on Sept 14, 2007 he began withdrawing troops yet again.

Wow! Flipping and flopping like a fish on the dock! No courage of his convictions, finger in the wind, the Iraqi people thrown under the bus, in the tank for defeat, etc., etc., etc..

The gotcha clearly would be that he promised the crazies that if elected he assured that all troops would be out of Iraq by a certain date and even introduced legislation in the Senate in 2007 to that affect (he wanted all troops out by March 31, 2008 and was certain the surge would fail). That rhetoric is the reason he became the Dem nominee. I honestly don’t know where Obama stands on any issue as it seems to change based on the audience. The only thing I do know is that he is against most anything any Pub is for and will say whatever he feels gives him the best chance to get elected.

twtttl,

The acusation is the Dems are playing gotcha.

The only thing I do know is that he is against most anything any Pub is for and will say whatever he feels gives him the best chance to get elected.

I thought you were talking about McCain the first time I read this…

I really liked senator McCain much more than candidate McCain. But I realize he’s trying to win the ultimate prize in American politics, so some lying and flip floping is to be expected. Even though I prefer Obama, I would’t be dissatisfied with McCain. Any republican that spends more time talking to La Raza than the NRA is my kind of guy. For once I don’t see the election as the lesser of two evils.

When asked if he is committed to winning the war in Iraq, Obama said, “I don’t think we have any choice. We have to win the broader war against terror that threatens America and its interests. I think that Iraq is one front on that war, but I think the central front is in Afghanistan and in the border regions of Pakistan.”

This sure makes that Obama’s legislation, for a fixed date withdrawal from Iraq by March 31, 2008, look pretty darn stupid .. but it’s so yesterday.

McCain doesn’t agree with Pubs a lot, but his history has been to vote his conscience regardless of party line, versus just being against what the other guy is saying. I certainly agree that he has played politics to get the Pub nomination and is playing the game to get elected. My point about having no idea about what Obama actually believes still stands. I can’t even call him a “flip-flopper” because you just never know what he really believes. I guess you just go on his short voting record.

The gotcha politics the Dems are playing is exactly what led Obama to introduce his unconditional timetable for troop withdrawal legislation and its relevant to the topic at hand. 2006 was not a good year in Iraq before the surge and his legislation was introduced as a “gotcha” on the Iraq war because of how badly things were going. Just a few years earlier he was supporting the decision of Kerry for his Iraq war vote because he was the Dem nominee for pres, but shortly thereafter the Dems were back playing politics with the issue and using “gotcha” tactics on just the Pubs that voted for the war. It sure seems much of the public has bought into the notion that it was Bush lying to Congress that got them to vote for the war, so I guess you have to give credit to the Dems for their playing of politics on the war issue. Fortunately for us and the Iraqi’s, Obamas plan never made it very far.

McCain doesn’t agree with Pubs a lot, but his history has been to vote his conscience regardless of party line, versus just being against what the other guy is saying. I certainly agree that he has played politics to get the Pub nomination and is playing the game to get elected. My point about having no idea about what Obama actually believes still stands. I can’t even call him a “flip-flopper” because you just never know what he really believes. I guess you just go on his short voting record.

The gotcha politics the Dems are playing is exactly what led Obama to introduce his unconditional timetable for troop withdrawal legislation and its relevant to the topic at hand. 2006 was not a good year in Iraq before the surge and his legislation was introduced as a “gotcha” on the Iraq war because of how badly things were going. Just a few years earlier he was supporting the decision of Kerry for his Iraq war vote because he was the Dem nominee for pres and stating that his current position on the war is not much different from Bush’s, but shortly thereafter the Dems were back playing politics with the issue and using “gotcha” tactics on just the Pubs that voted for the war. It sure seems much of the public has bought into the notion that it was Bush lying to Congress that got them to vote for the war, so I guess you have to give credit to the Dems for their playing of politics on the war issue. Fortunately for us and the Iraqi’s, Obamas plan never made it very far.

Obama is lying. He started out saying he was going to withdrawl immediately when going up against Hillary. Then he stole Hillary’s plan to go up against McCain. Now he is saying stuff to get the moderate and the conservative vote. If he does get elected he will choose of of the first two plans and dump the plan he is talkig about now.

I think that it may be just a bit naieve to believe the words of any politician trying to win an election. I certainly don’t but I still vote for who I think is the better candidate.

Hey, Scott,

Then why didn’t we get John McCain in 2000, instead of the pampered rich kid, who ran his business into the ground, partied his ass off, and let his flying status lapse after he got a nice non-combat job during the Vietnam War? Now there’s one hell of a man.

Scott,

Dave was saying why didn’t we get McCain over Bush as the republican candidate. Conservatives wanted a poster boy in 2000. My beef with Bush started after what he and Rove did to McCain here in SC in 200o.

I don’t know if any of you caught the Nightline interview by Moran with Obama yesterday. Frankly, it was an embarrassment.

As Neo pointed out, he could not even bring himself to say he wanted success. Merely we “had no choice”.

He stated that Maliki told him he wanted quick withdrawal, yes, but absolutely wanted flexibility in that withdrawal. A flexibility that BHO is not feeling inclined to give with much latitude… as he expounded on more thoroughly when speaking with his conversation with Petraeus.

He stated that Petraeus told him that they were worried about his 16 month schedule (sans specifics) as related to the fragility of the currrent security success. Obama’s comments on his concern was that it was understandable, but that Petraeus was concerned with achieving his mission successfully, while he… as a POTUS… had to consider that the money to achieve that success could be better used for domestic purposes.

Moran tried to corner him on his “judgment” on the Surge and in the past four years. Obama tried to take it back to his IL Senate days, and Moran repeated… *in the past four years*. Obama did the dodge about the Surge success, the went back to his judgment “record” being right more than wrong since his IL Senate days. Had to fit those talking points in, I guess… ram the lies down our throats one more time.

BHO went to the ME for a carefully orchestrated photo op, and not to “listen” to Iraqs and commanders on the ground. Even Andrea Mitchell notices this… shamed him into doing a “press conference” today… poorly done, BTW. Moran actually did a good job in trying to pin him down, while BHO’s responses were clipped, evasive – and his body language in close ups revealed him looking down more than into Moran’s steady gaze. He could not hold eye contact on his answers.

The MSM touts this trip as a “success”. IMHO, it is, if you want to admit that he is showing himself to be seriously inadequate in foreign policy. I listen to him, and find him to be the predictable failure I believed he’d be all along.

But I must stress… there is no substitute for watching the interview, as compared to reading compiled transcripts. I notice that the ABC report did not have the times on the Nightline show that Obama cut Moran off to divert a question. Nor did it contain much that was aired on the 30 minute show.

Truly, the man sans teleprompter, lacks not only eloquence, but plain, honest credibility.

I listen to him, and find him to be the predictable failure I believed he’d be all along.

Maybe we’re not being very objective in our analysis?

I gave him the “objectivity” early in the primary season, Fit Fit. When he proved himself to be the typical Chicago politician, affirmative action proponent, and socialist/welfare king, as well as irresponsible on energy policies, I needed only to see if he reversed that.

Objectivity doesn’t work when the subject proves themselves over and over to be a loser.

Scott,

That doesn’t begin to answer my question. Al Gore has nothing to do with why the Republicans chose Bush over McCain. And what about in 2004? My point isn’t that a Republican was elected. It is that a totally incompetent Republican with mediocre intelligence, ineffective leadership skills, and no strong character to compensate for those lackings, was chosen as the Republican candidate. And as far as it having been eight years, it’s been a horrible eight years.
Morning in America it ain’t.

“America is divided-does the candidate have the ability to appeal to moderates rather than just a party base?”

That’s what the general election is for Scott. We’ll see.

“Does the candidate even know what the hell he’s talking about (Obama’s running a historical gaffe-a-day lately with my favorite still his claim that by invading Iraq in 2003, the US somehow “took it’s eye off the ball” re UBL and AQ and let them escape into Pakistan in 2001)”

And I’ll gladly put that up against the “Iraq-Pakistan border” in a gaffe-a-thon (where’s Joe Lieberman when you need him?)

BTW, Abraham Lincoln was a traveling backwoods lawyer, was a member of Illinois State House of Representatives and had only one term in the United States House of Representives during which he opposed the Mexican-American War (defeatocrat).
Who knew?

Military experience there is no question someone who has served has more experience than someone who did not.

One of my biggest disapointments with Candidate McCain was the realization that he is willing to use his “honorable” past as a pandering device, as evidenced in the Packers/Steelers gaffe. Still as I said earlier, I guess you do what’s needed when running for office.

And as far as it having been eight years, it’s been a horrible eight years.

Let me guess: Because of Bush?

If for nothing else, be thankful that W. Bush prevented an Al Gore presidency and a John Kerry presidency.

Think of it that way, Dave, and I’m sure you’ll have a more restful sleep at night. 🙂

Military experience there is no question someone who has served has more experience than someone who did not.

One of my biggest disapointments with Candidate McCain was the realization that he is willing to use his “honorable” past as a pandering device, as evidenced in the Packers/Steelers gaffe. Still as I said earlier, I guess you do what’s needed when running for office.

I don’t think McCain has exploited his military service as extensively as he could be doing. That alone, which I think everyone acknowledges, doesn’t qualify one for leading a nation. But the contrast in past experience couldn’t be more stark. In part, it’s also related to age, as McCain has simply been around longer to gather more worldly experience (23 years service in the Senate vs. 2 years, with half of that spent on the presidential campaign trail?). I feel like Obama’s nomination is so ill-deserved.

Don’t think for one moment Obama wouldn’t love to be able to claim past military service, if he could, to beef up his presidential bid (all he can do is channel his uncle’s military service on his behalf).

Photobucket

One thing you don’t hear McCain do, is “exploit” the military service of his sons. It certainly takes the chickenhawk charge off the table, about not having a personal stake in the war(s).

One thing you don’t hear McCain do, is “exploit” the military service of his sons. It certainly takes the chickenhawk charge off the table, about not having a personal stake in the war(s).

I agree 100% there.

I disagree on him using his own past though. To me, he’s worse than Kerry. Much worse than in 2000 or in his senate campaigns.

Even with his condition, I think McCain could at least manage a snappier salute than Kerry…

The only thing Obama stands for is getting elected president. He will say anything, do anthing, steal any ideas from others and claim them as his own. He is the quintessential politician. No one knows how he stands on any issue. The majority of his followers believe what they want to believe about him. He is a hollow man and his followers can fill this vacumn with their own perceptions. He certainly has given them a multitude to choose from.