22
Jul

Obama Abandons Commitment to Iraq Withdrawal Timetable

Posted by: Scott @ 4:02 am in Barack Obama, Bush Derangement Syndrome, John McCain, Middle East, Military, Moonbats, Politics, Post-Invastion, The Iraqi War, War On Terror

Visited 1004 times, 5 so far today

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.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print this article!
  • Facebook
  • Fark
  • StumbleUpon
  • Blogsvine
  • Bumpzee
  • del.icio.us
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008 at 4:02 am and is filed under Barack Obama, Bush Derangement Syndrome, John McCain, Middle East, Military, Moonbats, Politics, Post-Invastion, The Iraqi War, War On Terror. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Trackbacks

  1. No Runny Eggs » Blog Archive » The Morning Scramble - 7/22/2008
  2. Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Obama, Afghanistan & NATO… taking “our eye off the ball”
  3. Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Obama, Afghanistan & NATO… taking “our eye off the ball”

38 comments so far

Scrapiron
 1 

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.

July 22nd, 2008 at 4:32 am
Scott
 2 

I was actually happy and encouraged by his statements. It shows that at least he knows reality; that battles and wars can have timetables and schedules of operations etc., but the enemy gets a vote, and Murphy’s 1st law of combat applies…

…no plan survives contact w the enemy

It’s exactly as rational people thought:

-if nominated, he’d move to the center, grasp reality, and see that you can’t just pick a day and bring everyone home

-if elected, his administration will be the Democratic Party’s worst nightmare; it will be accountable, and excuses (as we’ve seen from the Democrats’ Congress) will no longer sell.

-if President…he will have to be more vested in American success than American defeat/Democratic Party success.

July 22nd, 2008 at 4:44 am
Fit fit
 3 

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.

July 22nd, 2008 at 4:49 am
Scott
 4 

“conditions-based general time horizon with the aspirational goal of withdrawing the last of our troops in 2010″; ie “a careful manner”

But you’re incorrect that President Bush has never had a withdrawal plan. It’s been benchmark based, and when conditions have changed (things have happened intermediate to the benchmarks to paraphrase Sen Obama) the President’s changed the plan.
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. As I said…the enemy gets a vote.

Also, the point isn’t about Sen Obama’s nuanced/caveated opinion (the hallmark of Democratic Party Presidential candidates since 2002), but rather that Senator Obama (as fitfit’s said) does not focus on dates for leaving as the Democratic Party base has demanded since 2002, and demanded only as a means of playing gotcha politcs rather than actually accomplishing American success.

July 22nd, 2008 at 5:07 am
Fit fit
 5 

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

July 22nd, 2008 at 5:33 am
DW 5000
 6 

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..

July 22nd, 2008 at 5:59 am
twtttl
 7 

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.

July 22nd, 2008 at 6:15 am
Fit fit
 8 

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…

July 22nd, 2008 at 6:29 am
Scott
 9 

“I thought you were talking about McCain the first time I read this…”
Kinda proves the Bush/McCain/Obama theory

July 22nd, 2008 at 6:48 am
Fit fit
 10 

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.

July 22nd, 2008 at 7:09 am
Neo
 11 

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.

July 22nd, 2008 at 7:15 am
twtttl
 12 

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.

July 22nd, 2008 at 7:28 am
twtttl
 13 

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.

July 22nd, 2008 at 7:37 am
Gregory Dittman
 14 

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.

July 22nd, 2008 at 8:26 am
Scott
 15 

I sorta disagree about him dumping his current position if elected. I think he’ll become more hawkish on the idea of staying, and-true to any politician-blame the reasoning on the previous admin. It’ll be easier to start a conditions-based withdrawal this year, then stop/start/stop/start it in 09 until 2010 when most commanders in the field and most informed politicians all see the war as winding to “off” mode. I just had a briefing from the Coalition commander responsible for training up the Iraqi Navy (more on this later). There already is a timetable for training, and it’s the end of 2010, but it’s not a deadline. It’s an objective that will be met, will most likely be met on time, but can be off a bit. There are similar plans in the works for combat forces, logistics forces, counter-terrorist forces, training forces, etc.

More on a different thread on this later. Point here is that there is a timeline, it is conditions-based, things can change in the intermediate (as Sen Obama has always nuanced), and the war is ending; ending on success rather than defeat. Moreover, Sen Obama/Pres Obama won’t want to rush things and do a withdrawal in a haphazard manner (his words). He’s gonna wanna be more careful getting out than getting in (his words again), and if he rushed things faster than 2010/2011, then he’d inherit any problems that result as well as be responsible for them (shudder to think! RESPONSIBILITY?! ARRRRRGH!!!!)

July 22nd, 2008 at 8:38 am
John Ryan
 16 

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.

July 22nd, 2008 at 8:53 am
Scott
 17 

John, you are SO right! 41yrs ago this week, Sen John McCain was one of the US Navy’s best combat pilots in arguably the best squadron of the Vietnam War, and on July 29, 1967 he was blown up on the USS Forrestal. He was wounded, escaped the ensuing fire, went on to fight bravely and successfully in the war until he was finally shot down, tortured, refused to leave early because of family connections, and eventually made it home as a true hero; a true warrior.

Of course, in the shadow othat resume to be Commander-In-Chief, Senator Obama was a community organizer.

Me, I’ll vote for the better man-not the better candidate.

July 22nd, 2008 at 9:38 am
Dave Noble
 18 

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.

July 22nd, 2008 at 10:20 am
Scott
 19 

Dave, in 2000 Gore was a bore, and that made the election come down to a statistical tie. Then a series of legal loopholes, fine print, and ancient American election structure gave us GWB by a few hundred votes. Remember all those Saturday Night Live skits back in 2000 where they created a new character that was both left and right and completely moderate? It was a choice/coin-toss between white bread and Wonder Bread.

‘Course, you can knock on GWB’s pre-election record all you want, but Gore had nowhere to go but to boredom after he created the internet.

Besides, that was EIGHT YEARS AGO. Get over it.

July 22nd, 2008 at 10:40 am
Fit fit
 20 

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.

July 22nd, 2008 at 11:17 am
MataHarley
 21 

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.

July 22nd, 2008 at 11:48 am
Fit fit
 22 

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?

July 22nd, 2008 at 11:53 am
MataHarley
 23 

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.

July 22nd, 2008 at 11:57 am
Scott
 24 

Objective?
Ok, here’s objective: who has a better understanding of the military:
Senator Obama with his experience as a community organizer (in communities where people like Reverand Wright thrived and prospered)
OR
Senator McCain with his vast wartime heroism and years as a political leader in Congress where he gained the nickname, “Maverick” for voting against his own party rather than in lockstep order w it as Sen Obama has always done?

Remember, we’re looking for the President of the UNITED States…not a nominee anymore; not just President of the Democrats or of the Republicans.

July 22nd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Scott
 25 

America’s at war-does the candidate have military experience or some other experience to know what it’s like to send people to die. Deer fever is a helluva lot more powerful when the sight picture is a human, and just because a person uses a telephone instead of a rifle…there is no difference imo.

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

Congress is incredibly stalled-does the candidate know how to work with Congress, and can he do so in a bi-partisan manner rather than just cram a party agenda down the throats of all Americans?

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)

Does the candidate have a history of taking a stand and demonstrating resolve under pressure (say…like being tortured but still refusing to go home, or even show a willingness to dare and vote against the political party line?)

It’s really simple, but Obama’s charisma and his ability to present other people’s speeches as if they were his own makes him very lucrative.

July 22nd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Dave Noble
 26 

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?

July 22nd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Fit fit
 27 

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.

July 22nd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Wordsmith
 28 

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. :)

July 22nd, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Wordsmith
 29 

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).

July 22nd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Scott
 30 

Damn, had a great post, and lost it.

Basically, this was it…

Dave, the point I was trying to make was that in 2000 (really post 12/98), Americans wanted a bland President-not one with a resume. Even Bill Bradley was too exciting back then. McCain probably should’ve won the nomination then, but hey, that’s the Republican Party, and I’m not a Republican. In 2004, I don’t think anyone wanted to inherit the world situation, so the party let GWB go it alone.

re the gaffe-a-thon, again, I should’ve been more clear. Sorry. Everyone-EVERYONE-has accidentally said Iraq instead of Iran or vice versa at one time or another. That’s a gaffe. However, Sen Obama’s “we took our eye off the ball” schtick is a lie. It’s a deliberate distortion of the truth; a deliberate misleading of Americans…OR he’s ignorant because events in 2003 don’t impact events in Dec01. He might as well say that if we hadn’t had The Surge, the USS Cole wouldn’t have been attacked because we took our eye off the ball w The Surge and let Al Queda attack the ship.

Yeah, Lincoln was a backwoods lawyer, and a failure up until he won the Presidency and thus set in motion session which divided the union. It’s worth noting that his lack of military understanding and learn-on-the-job performance needlessly let hundreds of thousands of Americans die and extended the civil war he started by being elected. For example, if Lincoln hadn’t won, but instead a hero from the Mexican War who had been shot at, had an outstanding record in the most battle-hardened unit of its type, and who had rolled through flames, been injured several times, been captured, tortured, and imprisoned…if such a man had been President…do you think McClellan, Hooker, Burnside, or other political generals would have been running the show early on, or would the best generals have been appointed, led, and fought the war successfully? Would the war have happened at all or would it have been deterred by such a man with a warrior history?

Oh yeah…that’s right-I forgot.
Senator Obama was a community organizer.

Surely during his time as a local organizer in Reverand Wright’s community he:
was shot at by large caliber heavy artillery
blown up
rolled through burning fuel
blown up again
was injured
shot at several more times by big automatic artillery
blown up again
parachuted into a Chicago combat area
was injured badly
was beaten by a mob
was tortured
and was imprisoned

I mean…being a community organizer is one helluva experience. It strengthens one’s resolve as if…well as if it were combat over Vietnam. Right?

July 22nd, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Fit fit
 31 

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.

July 22nd, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Scott
 32 

I guess we’ll know when its time for the RNC convention. If McCain goes up there w his war buddies and salutes and says he’s reporting for duty…then yeah, that’d be worse than Sen Kerry. ‘Course, Sen McCain’s war experience was a lot more involved than being skipper on a bassmaster assault craft in Cambodia over Christmas.

July 22nd, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Fit fit
 33 

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

July 22nd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Scott
 34 

LOL!!!

BREAKING!
Fitfit stock up 15pts!

July 22nd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
BarbaraS
 35 

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.

July 22nd, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment

Email me if your comment is caught in spam